Yet Another “New Rifle” For The Army?
BY Herschel Smith
6 years, 10 months ago
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley has waged a relentless war against the Department of Defense’s acquisition process (hereafter referred to as “purgatory”) to replace the decades-old weapons currently in soldiers’ kit with new pistols and other small arms. So far, he’s had some major successes on the pistol front with the Army’s adoption of the Sig Sauer P320 as the XM17 to replace the M9 Beretta as the branch’s sidearm of choice.
But finding an upgrade for the M4 carbine has proven a more elusive challenge. In November, the Army’s plans to purchase a 7.62 mm off-the-shelf rifle as an intermediate solution finally gave up the ghost after months of budget-related uncertainty.
Now, the Army is currently evaluating a rifle that could actually be fielded relatively soon, Milley said Wednesday at an Association of the United States Army event in Crystal City, Virginia.
“There have been some research and testing done down at Fort Benning, [Georgia] and with industry partners that indicates that we could — it’s possible — have a rifle in the hands of American soldiers or Marines in the not too distant future — I don’t want to put a timeline — that can reach out at much greater ranges than currently exist with much greater impact or lethality and with much greater accuracy,” Milley said.
The rifle’s increased lethality can be attributed to the type of ammunition it uses, its chamber pressure and its optics, Milley said at AUSA’s Institute of Land Warfare breakfast. He did not reveal any specific information about the rifle, such as whether it chambers a 5.56mm or a 7.62mm round or if it is fully automatic, like the M27 infantry automatic rifle used by the Marines.
“It’s an excellent system,” Milley said. “They’ve done some proof of principles on it. It is real. It is not fantasy and industry is moving out quickly and we expect that, with appropriate funding, we should be able to have this particular weapon in the not too distant future – I won’t define what ‘not too distant future’ is.”
Although Milley said that soldiers currently have a rifle capable of matching adversaries anywhere in the world, the problems with the M4 and M16 have been well documented.
The M4s biggest design flaw is its gas impingement operating system, which can easily be fouled, causing the weapon to jam, said retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert Scales.
“That’s the fatal flaw of the M4,” Scales told Task & Purpose. “You cannot fix it.”
Here’s what cannot be fixed. Old farts who don’t know when to shut up because they’re being paid to say ridiculous things.
Hey, here’s a unique idea. I just thought of it. Why don’t you train Soldiers to shoot, and then supplement their units with a designated marksman like the Marines, and hold them to higher standards?
On January 18, 2018 at 7:37 am, Duke Norfolk said:
Yeah, the problem is that the whole “system” is set up such that people are incentivized to constantly change things. Pad that performance report and/or resume’ and curry some favor with Congress to produce new goodies and spend more money (etc., etc. ad nauseum). Throw in some outright corruption (who knows who is being paid in some form or other to adopt a new weapon) and it’s a recipe for endless wasted money regardless of mission effectiveness.
But what’s new under the sun, right?
On January 18, 2018 at 9:57 am, Pat Hines said:
Because the United States’ military will be among those rounding up firearms in the future, I don’t want them to be well trained shooters.
In fact, I want them to get worse, much worse.
On January 18, 2018 at 10:08 am, Fred said:
@Pat, That made me laugh but I think they should take it even further and they should hurry and fill the ranks with way, WAY, more women, girly boyz, trans-faggots, and SJW’s, and they should move to a purely race and gender based system of advancement and leadership, and lower those PT standards because PT is hard and mean and unfair.
On January 18, 2018 at 12:28 pm, moe mensale said:
I disagree with both @Pat and @Fred unless you’re both being facetious. The DoD has a Constitutional mandate. Make them stick to it instead of becoming a petri dish for social engineering like they’ve been for several decades now.
As far as the “new rifle” goes, some gun manufacturer is greasing the palms of top brass to convert from the M16/M4 system. But unless the cost/benefit analysis shows quantum gains over them it isn’t going to happen. Unless somebody’s payoff is outstanding. And then somebody else may end up paying for it in more ways than one.
On January 18, 2018 at 1:27 pm, Pat Hines said:
@ Mr. Mensale:
You’re deluding yourself if you think the US Constitution isn’t working exactly as intended by those who forced it through at the one and only convention of states, the Federalists.
John Marshall, a hard core Federalist, set up what we have today during his 30 years as Chief Justice. See Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) for the two cases that unleashed the power of the US government to define its own limits.
The Constitutional Compact, being violated, is null and void.
So, no, the US government’s military has NO constitutional underpinning to exist.
On January 18, 2018 at 1:29 pm, Pat Hines said:
“The error is in the assumption that the General Government is a party to the constitutional compact. The States, as has been shown, formed the compact, acting as Sovereign and independent communities. The General Government is but its creature;” – John C. Calhoun, 1831
Calhoun’s assertion was destroyed by the treasonous invasion of the lawfully seceded states by the United States.
On January 19, 2018 at 1:07 pm, moe mensale said:
“So, no, the US government’s military has NO constitutional underpinning to exist.”
I don’t follow what those two cases have to do with a centralized national defense establishment. Regardless, the Constitution and even the Articles of Confederation spell out the need for a centralized national military. Are the individual states supposed to formulate a cohesive national defense structure and policy? That would never work unless you’re OK with 50 separate plans.
Sorry but I have no desire to entrust our national defense to a socially engineered amalgam of fruit loops, sjw’s, transgendered binary I don’t know what I am’s and anything else the progressives want to throw into the mix. Social engineering may have its place but the military isn’t it.
And Article 1, Section 8 is still law of the land as far as I know.
On January 19, 2018 at 4:58 pm, Chris Mallory said:
“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;”
“the need for a centralized national military.”
Yes, a small cadre of troops supported by state militias. That would certainly cut down on the number of overseas adventures.
But given what Article 1 Section 8 has to say, how is any contract or enlistment constitutional if it lasts longer than the two years that Congress is constitutionally limited to appropriating? The Navy, and by extension the Marines, would not have this two year limit. Theoretically Congress could zero out the funds for the Army in the budget they are working on now.
On January 20, 2018 at 12:31 pm, moe mensale said:
“Yes, a small cadre of troops supported by state militias. That would certainly cut down on the number of overseas adventures.
But given what Article 1 Section 8 has to say, how is any contract or enlistment constitutional if it lasts longer than the two years that Congress is constitutionally limited to appropriating? ”
I don’t know how we’d legally work around the two year constraint thing but maybe better utilizing our tax dollars would help out.
– Not being the world’s policeman.
– Not training various countries military & security forces.
– Not maintaining military bases in nearly every other country.
– Not encumbering ourselves with useless & very dangerous military protection agreements like we have with Japan, S. Korea, every NATO country, etc.
– Not spending billions of dollars on unnecessary, worthless armaments of all sizes and descriptions.
I’m sure there’s more.
On January 20, 2018 at 1:25 pm, Chris Mallory said:
Notice, Article 1, Section 8 only gives the Congress the ability to raise and arm an army for two years. It also says that the Congress shall “provision and maintain a Navy”. A standing army is unconstitutional.