M4 replaced?

308pirate

Gunny Sergeant
Apr 25, 2017
4,786
2,343
113
#3
I've been seeing articles like that at least once every couple of years over the last 15 years. And yet the standard issue rifle is still some variation of the M16 chambered in 5.56 NATO.

I'll believe any of this rifle/cartridge change shit when the entire Army is carrying them. Until then....LOL
 

Hondo616

New Hide Member
Jul 31, 2018
4
0
1
#4
Old article. They already said they are switching to 6.8 SPC
Doubt they would switch to 6.8 SPC, most likely wont happen anyway just like all of the other times they were talking about switching to 7.62, 6.5CM, .264USA, 6.8SPC, and 300BLK. Plus yeah the article is over a year old.
 

Sako man

Full Member
Sep 7, 2012
1,305
58
48
Galactic Sector ZZ9 Alpha Xray Plural
#5
Yeah who's to say, the 5.56 round is fully entrenched and theres a billion of them to go around. Maybe it would be better if there was some standardization or 77 grain AP? I don't really know but just a thought. Militaries move very slow in adopting change. Small unites seem to move a lot faster in trying new things.
 

oubeta

Sergeant
Nov 2, 2003
538
1
18
39
Edmond, Oklahoma
#7
HK 416 is outdated already. There are better systems out there. HK is waaaay over-gassed. Caracal would be a better option. Same designer, but they addressed all the shortcomings of the 416.

HK416 Gen 1
Sig Gen 2
Caracal Gen 3
 
Nov 8, 2008
39
7
8
OCONUS
#8
No. We are not switching to 6.8SPC. It's a 6.8 cartridge that is not commercially available.

The 7.62 battle rifle for general issue was killed off quite some time ago for a number of reasons.
 
Likes: Novak77

JSTARSZ

Lefty's Rule
Feb 6, 2008
2,088
128
63
Wolftown
#10
No. We are not switching to 6.8SPC. It's a 6.8 cartridge that is not commercially available.

The 7.62 battle rifle for general issue was killed off quite some time ago for a number of reasons.
When people started seeing 6.8mm they assumed it was the 6.8 SPC II but it was the .270 bullet that they were talking about. They are building around a bullet for knockdown power and penetration. I am interested in what they come up with. After 17 years of combat experience the Army should have some decent real world data to pull from to come up with something that works well.
 

pmclaine

Gunny Sergeant
Nov 6, 2011
8,229
5,324
113
50
MA
#11
Im a member of a club that shoots on the local base.

Whats interesting is the range control is putting out info that they are going to prohibit use of 6.5 on the ranges with concern they will have one leave the range area.

They currently prohibit .50 cal, .338 and similar class ammo.

Our club only allows 5.56/.308/30-06 to comply with range control and meet the historical usage of the facility.

Not saying someone has a hole in their ballistics knowledge but I dont understand the allowance of 30-06 or M240Bs being fired by Privates, while banning use of some version of 6mm.

Will be interesting to see what they will say if USA goes 6.
 

perttime

Registered from Finland
Nov 28, 2018
88
19
8
Finland
#12
Using conventional ammunition, going for bigger bullets and more power means adding weight for the poor grunts to carry. They are pretty well burdened as is. Adding more weight would make them less mobile and agile on their own feet.
 
Nov 8, 2008
39
7
8
OCONUS
#13
While I won't disagree with you, if the performance is significantly better, then it may be worth it. Having said that, this cartridge will be used in new rifles, so they may very well weigh less, etc., than existing platforms (not that the M4A1 is necessarily heavy). Part of me is also wondering, given Texron (sp?) involvement, if this isn't an attempt to specifically get telescoping ammo into the system more than anything.
 
Jun 23, 2012
27
5
3
30
#14
They aren't making any changes. The 6.8 that has been floated around as the new round for the military isn't 6.8SPC.... it is a caseless 6.8 that we aren't going to see for a long time if ever. 5.56 will be the round until we move past cased small arms munitions. There just isn't enough benefit moving from 556NATO to something like 300BLK to justify re-tooling. And you know programs like that are subject to be dropped at anytime for whatever reason.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...mo-and-one-of-these-companies-might-build-it/
 
Last edited:

buffalowinter

Rick Jones MAJ, SF (Ret)
Mar 17, 2014
808
1,006
93
Llano, TX
#15
It would be far easier just to improve the 5.56 bullet if all you want is penetrtion of body armor. ..teflon coat, hardened steel, sabot, etc. etc. The best thing about the 5.56 is you can carry alot of it..ask this guy what caliber he prefers...he'd ditch that L1A1 in a second for the M4. The SAS carried the m16 in the Falkland's.
1544030516249.png
 
Sep 16, 2017
404
161
43
El Campo, TX
#17
I talked to some special forces guys and they don’t like the current issue 5.56 ammo. Some of the things that you read about the Ammo zipping right through is true, but issued anyhow because of the capability to penetrate body armor. I was told that it takes several hits to put combatants down. There is limited use of barnes solid copper projectiles and that is preferred in 5.56 but hard to come by.

Another neat thing is the preference for their scars in .308 or the m4 in 300 BO for city fighting over the .556. Both of which are only in limited use. The guys said the .30 calibers or just more effective period. I was also told that the 7.62x39 round is perfect for urban fighting and that the designers got that one right. Some guys apparently swap from .300 bo in the city to .556 in the field but once 300bo is in very limited use.

Just thought this was neat and figured I would share with you guys..
 

Strykervet

Resident Phoenix Eye and Dim Mak Instructor
Jun 5, 2011
3,104
1,266
113
42
Pierce County, WA
#19
I've been seeing articles like that at least once every couple of years over the last 15 years. And yet the standard issue rifle is still some variation of the M16 chambered in 5.56 NATO.

I'll believe any of this rifle/cartridge change shit when the entire Army is carrying them. Until then....LOL
He called it. I remember when I got to Ft. Lewis in 2001 that the newspaper there had articles all about the XM8 and it looked like we were gonna adopt that motherfucker prior to Iraq. Well, you know how that turned out.

Army has been "looking" for a new rifle since Jesus was a baby. Just go to the Benning Infantry Museum. They have all the OICW's from the 60's (those are REALLY cool looking! Rotary GMG under barrel, fires saboted fragmenting darts, all sorts of shit!). Across from those they have the more modern submissions. Most were variants of the AR (the original M4 actually had huge square SAW handguards!) some never seen before like the rubber coated combat rifle (was the one used by GI Joe toys as a matter of fact) and the latest at that time, the G11 caseless rifle. I recall when we were sure THAT was coming on board.

They aren't making any changes. The 6.8 that has been floated around as the new round for the military isn't 6.8SPC.... it is a caseless 6.8 that we aren't going to see for a long time if ever. 5.56 will be the round until we move past cased small arms munitions. There just isn't enough benefit moving from 556NATO to something like 300BLK to justify re-tooling. And you know programs like that are subject to be dropped at anytime for whatever reason.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...mo-and-one-of-these-companies-might-build-it/
And this. If any caliber were chosen on merit, it's be 6.5G and everyone knows it. But recently, the military has been asking for a new cartridge to be designed that expands in the chamber. They were offering a prize. Anyway, it has specs, and I've seen a prototype but that's it.

And the prototype? Yeah, an M4.

What a lot of you aren't hitting on is how much it'd cost the army to replace a rifle. Do you have any idea how many PARTS alone we have? The rifle is about as common as the AK. On top of that, I'm told the main cost is actually in training. Every soldier has to be taught how to use it from scratch. Training doctrine has to be re-written. Arms rooms cleaned out and restocked. Millions of M4's would have to be shredded (yeah, they have a big ass shredder that turns rifles and SAWs and 240's into confetti; I cried when I saw it).

I'll believe it when I see it too. But I hope I never do. Because the next rifle will surely be proprietary in the sense we won't be able to own it. Perhaps bought from overseas, like HK (because we love fucking over our own firearms industry). And if it fires a new round, especially a more expensive, rare round, bet your ass we won't be seeing 'em. Or if we do, they'll be prohibitively expensive.
 
Likes: Diver160651

buffalowinter

Rick Jones MAJ, SF (Ret)
Mar 17, 2014
808
1,006
93
Llano, TX
#20
I talked to some special forces guys and they don’t like the current issue 5.56 ammo. Some of the things that you read about the Ammo zipping right through is true, but issued anyhow because of the capability to penetrate body armor. I was told that it takes several hits to put combatants down. There is limited use of barnes solid copper projectiles and that is preferred in 5.56 but hard to come by.

Another neat thing is the preference for their scars in .308 or the m4 in 300 BO for city fighting over the .556. Both of which are only in limited use. The guys said the .30 calibers or just more effective period. I was also told that the 7.62x39 round is perfect for urban fighting and that the designers got that one right. Some guys apparently swap from .300 bo in the city to .556 in the field but once 300bo is in very limited use.

Just thought this was neat and figured I would share with you guys..
I'm a Special Forces guy. I like the 5.56. Yes, in SF we have access to many weapons and you pick the weapon to suit the mission. I often carried an AK and it was definitely not because it was the ideal battle. We're talking about the caliber of the standard issue rifle to equip an Army and the 5.56 is tough to beat.
 
Sep 16, 2017
404
161
43
El Campo, TX
#21
I'm a Special Forces guy. I like the 5.56. Yes, in SF we have access to many weapons and you pick the weapon to suit the mission. I often carried an AK and it was definitely not because it was the ideal battle. We're talking about the caliber of the standard issue rifle to equip an Army and the 5.56 is tough to beat.
I get that and I appreciate your response and you didn't contradict anything that I wrote and I agree with you. The men I talked to are active duty soldiers that didn't say that they didn't like .556. They don't like their current loading of the cartridge. It isn't very effective compared to other loadings of the same cartridge such as the Barnes copper that I mentioned which is hard to come by. They also said nothing of the AK47. They like the 30 calibers , 300BO and 7.62x39, for anything up close and personal. They never even told me that they used the 7.62x39 cartridge just that it is in their opinion a superior cartridge for urban fighting compared to their issue 5.56 loading while also mentioning its short comings in longer range engagements. I believe you connected your own dots on what I said and not interpreted what I actually wrote.
 
Last edited:

mgrs

Sergeant of the Hide
Feb 18, 2018
116
41
28
NoVA
#22
Im a member of a club that shoots on the local base.

Whats interesting is the range control is putting out info that they are going to prohibit use of 6.5 on the ranges with concern they will have one leave the range area.

They currently prohibit .50 cal, .338 and similar class ammo.

Our club only allows 5.56/.308/30-06 to comply with range control and meet the historical usage of the facility.

Not saying someone has a hole in their ballistics knowledge but I dont understand the allowance of 30-06 or M240Bs being fired by Privates, while banning use of some version of 6mm.

Will be interesting to see what they will say if USA goes 6.
I have never seen an official SDZ done up for 6.5 class cartridges, but it probably just carries too far and it is the length of the impact area that is the problem. This is likely why .50 and .338 are prohibited on that particular range. Many of the small arms ranges on post are near catonment areas or arranged such the impact area cannot be expanded without major disruption to other ranges or facilities.

My guess on the 5.56/.308/30-06 limitation is for the club calling in round counts to range control....that way they can easily match it up to a DODIC.
 
Likes: pmclaine