The ideal rifle for the military to replace the M4

[Dirty_Harry]

Just for fun, what do you all think the ideal rifle for the military is? To filfill all roles? This is my idea:

1. A bullpup design (CQB, getting out of vehicles, general handiness etc)
2. Have an intermediate cartridge for up to 600M engagements. (something like the 6.8(not necessarily saying 6.8 is best))
3. Have a 1-6 power optic, with backup iron sights.

Again this is just for fun!

 

[Taco-XL]

I agree that the bull-pup design is not too far off the horizon. It confuses me though why they want to replace it anyways (M4). I know there have been issues with its reliability in sand/mud environments but this is with 'bones stock' configurations usually made by Colt. With all the improvements made to the AR platform, many of these issues could be resolved by simply adopting some of them into the standard GI rifle. That would make a whole lot more sense and economically cheaper than starting with a whole new platform. The AR design can be made to be just as reliably as anything else if the right components are used if they are wiling to spend a little extra per rifle and quit using standard, base level parts. We civilians can build much higher quality ARs than what is being put on the battlefield for not all that much more money. Also, simply opening up the tolerances a few thousandths would work wonders.

 

[lamarw]

I can see it now. Company clerk mistakes his or her rifle for a stapler and shoots up Company Orderly Room.

 

[mardanlin]

Actually the AR rifles that civilians build are much cheaper than their military counter part even though they are higher quality. Just take a look at the MK11.

 

[Jimro]

Every firearm is a series of compromises.

As such, the only "ideal" you can come up with is what set of compromises you consider are "ideal." For example "medium" cartridges take more magazine space and weigh more, and bullpup rifles suffer from certain ergonomic restrictions (reloading in the prone in body armor for example).

But, the military decided that the M4A1 was the "ideal" replacement for the M4.

Is it "ideal" to you? Probably not. But then again, you can't make anything "ideal" when any end product is a result of compromises.

Jimro

 

[HiBC]

I have not spent any time shooting a bullpup,except an AK variant called the "Bushmaster".I really was not impressed.

IMO, they would be difficult to shoot accurately in conventional shooting positions.

I'll bet its a lot easier to hit a paper plate at 100 yds standing,sitting,or prone with a conventional rifle.

I personally do not think I would go bullpup.Cute does not necessarily translate to effective.
Another problem with a bullpup:Rifles do somehow fifure a way to "kaboom" once in a while.Generally when an M-4 goes all to flanders,the shooter ends up in pretty good shape.The bullpup puts the exploding zone against your neck or head.

From this point,I will defer to those who have carried the M-4 in combat.I'm not a Veteran.

 

[kraigwy]

There is nothing wrong with the M16/M4 series rifle.

The faster twist (1:7 vs 1:12) over the M16a1 allows for heavier bullets which extends the range of the rifles to 600 yards and beyond.

The problem is we need to teach our soldiers how to shoot. We have established Squad Designated Marksman programs to extend the range the rifle squad can engage targets. It is/was an effective program, why not provide the training to all infantry soldiers?

I believe it would be more cost effective to train soldiers to shoot rather then replace the rifle. Giving the soldier another rifle will not solve the problem, training will.

 

[tahunua001]

well, if cost was not a factor, I would still go with an AR type rifle, though I would go with something along the lines of a Seekins Precision CBR, which is fully ambidextrous(added controls). I would chamber it in 6.5 grendel and probably go with an ACOG or aimpoint of some type.


the problem with bull pups is that the trigger linkages usually result in a less than superb trigger making them difficult to fire accurately. the ability of a cartridge to shoot accurately to 600m means nothing if the rifle has to be locked into a vice to get that same accuracy.

 

[Mosin-Marauder]

If cost was a factor, I don't see why we couldn't adopt a rifle like the AK-74/AK-74u. Other than the (completely undeserved) bad guy reputation, it's a very good rifle.

1) Extremely more accurate than the AK-47 (because of the cartridge)
2) Very low recoil
3) Could possibly be chambered in .223/5.56
4) Extremely reliable (As we all know)
5) Ease of maintenance/ability to function for extended periods of time without being cleaned.
6) Requires very little training to use.
7) Could be used for CQB (the 74u variant)
8) And lastly, the insane amount of damage this does when it hits flesh (One advantage to keeping it in the 5.45 caliber).

Never going to happen though.

 

[SR420]

kraigwy

I believe it would be more cost effective to train soldiers to shoot rather then replace the rifle. Giving the soldier another rifle will not solve the problem, training will.

Agreed.

The lack of training created problems with the M14 EBR... I can envision numerous problems if a new rifle is issued, and these problems would only be exacerbated by issuing a new bullpup rifle.

 

[Jimro]

4) Extremely reliable (As we all know)

No, we don't "all know."

http://www.minutemanreview.com/2010/01/testing-legendary-reliability-of-ak.html

Jimro

 

[Mosin-Marauder]

No, we don't "all know."

I don't recall ever stating in my post that you could dump a handful of sand in the trigger mechanism and it would still function. In combat conditions AK's are more reliable than AR variants. I counter your video with one as well. I'd like to see how an AR functions after it has the same amount of sand in its inner workings.

http://youtu.be/zqL0dtIeTT8

 

[Jimro]

There is a difference between being cached for 18 years and "buried in the ground" for 18 years...

Now my experience has been that AKs aren't particularly any more or less reliable than an AR-15 in a similar maintenance condition. My experience is that AKs and ARs will lock up on you and fail if they are worn out or not maintained.

I've never seen any study, or experienced anything in Iraq or Afghanistan, that made me conclude that AKs were more reliable in combat based on any design feature. Heck, I've seen 240s lock up from bad maintenance, and the paratroopers at Wanat welded a 240 action shut from firing it beyond design specs.

But then again, I guess everybody doesn't know what you know.

Jimro

 

[Mosin-Marauder]

But then again, I guess everybody doesn't know what you know.

No, I suspect most people do know (alot) more than me.

I am just stating my experience. I've been on shooting trips and my cousins AR choked up several times. Having no other experience than what I have read and researched I am just basing my thoughts on what research I have done. Real life experience obviously trumps that.

 

[Erno86]

I would suggest that the U.S. military stick with the standard M4 shooting 77 grain bullets with at least a 1 in 9 twist rate, outfitted with Wilson Combat CSAT flip up iron sights, Vortex Razor HD Gen II, 1-6X24mm x 30mm tube, with a Vortex magnifier scope turn ring and a Wilson Combat finger replaceable QD screw scope mount --- which BTW --- is my current setup for one of my Rock River AR's.

 

[SR420]

Erno86 I would suggest that the U.S. military stick with the standard M4 shooting 77 grain bullets with at least a 1 in 9 twist rate, outfitted with Wilson Combat CSAT drop down iron sights, Vortex Razor HD Gen II, 1-6X24mm x 30mm tube, with a Vortex magnifier scope turn ring

CQB-16, 147 to 175 grain projectiles, 1:10 twist, TROY flip up battle sights, Razor HD Gen II 1-6 with speed ring

 

[Erno86]

SR420 --- Awesome pic!!!

My Vortex Razor only came with a rear scope cover --- and not one for the front --- How about yours?



Thanks,

Erno

 

[SR420]

Thank you.
I have both F & R, they were ordered from Vortex

 

[SPEMack618]

I like the M-4A1 in 6.8 SPC.

I'll keep my ACOG as my optic.

 

[BlueTrain]

I think it's a mistake to expect too much from a single weapon or the average soldier. I suspect the army would agree with that. Don't bother giving the average infantryman a rifle with which he can make hits at 600 meters because he can't do it. But you could give the best shot in the squad or even the platoon a sniper rifle with good optics and you'd be getting somewhere. It is a debatable point whether anyone can be trained to be an above average shot. In the meantime, things change and practically all infantry rifles have optics now, which improves hit ratios dramatically.

Remember that the first "assault rifle," the Stg44, was chambered in a weaker cartridge than the M16/m4 is and moreover, the M16 and the 5.56 is almost as old as the 7.62 NATO, which itself was considered an "intermediate" round at the time. The Germans were greatly disappointed that the more powerful 7.62 round was adopted by NATO, although we still had National Guard units equipped with M1 rifles and BARs well into the 1970s, which only seems like yesterday to me.