Army Won't Field Rifle Deemed Superior to M4

It's a debate that's gone on for years - and now it's finally coming to a head.

The compact M4 carbine - a shortened version of the M16 - that is now standard issue for most Army troops, some Marines and other specialized units is facing increased criticism because of its tendency to malfunction with even the minutest exposure to the elements.
Some ground communities, including special operations forces, have begun to sideline the M4 in favor of newer, gas-piston operated variants such as the Heckler & Koch-manufactured 416 and the FNH-built Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR
In a routine acquisition notice March 23, a U.S. Special Forces battalion based in Okinawa announced that it is buying 84 upper receiver assemblies for the HK416 to modify their M4 carbines. The M4 fires using a system that redirects gas from the expended round to eject it and reload another. The 416 and SCAR use a gas-operated piston that physically pushes the bolt back to eject the round and load another.
Carbon buildup from the M4's gas system has plagued the rifle for years, resulting in some close calls with Soldiers in combat whose rifles jammed at critical moments.
According to the solicitation for the new upper receiver assemblies, the 416 "allows Soldiers to replace the existing M4 upper receiver with an HK proprietary gas system that does not introduce propellant gases and the associated carbon fouling back into the weapon's interior. This reduces operator cleaning time, and increases the reliability of the M4 Carbine, particularly in an environment in which sand and dust are prevalent."
The 416 is used by the Army's elite Delta Force, and a recent Army Times investigation showed the service's top equipment buyers ignored data from the spec ops community showing the M4 had fundamental flaws. Enamored by the development of futuristic weapons such as the XM29 and, later, XM8 - neither of which were ever fielded - the M4 stayed in the hands of Soldiers deploying to hot, dusty, austere environments like Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Army would prefer to wait for the development of a new rifle firing an airburst, round - essentially leaping ahead of today's technology. But that innovation has been hard to find in the right weight class.
An Army spokeswoman for Program Executive Office Soldier, based at Fort Belvoir, Va., said in a statement the Army isn't buying into SOF's argument.
"At this time PEO Soldier is not procuring and does not have plans to procure the 416," said Army spokeswoman, Erin Thomas, in an email statement.
But special operations forces sometimes work outside the "Big Army" procurement system, so they can grab the best gear quickly.
"The elimination of the gas tube ... means that the M4 will function normally even if the weapon is fired full of water without first being drained," the justification for the 416 assembly buy states. "There isn't another company that offers these features in their products. It is a practical, versatile system."
Army weapons experts have been tinkering with new weapons designs, such as the HK-built XM8. Its modular design, rugged construction and accuracy intrigued many in the Army - and other services. But in 2005, the Army abandoned the XM8 after spending $33 million - though the Natick Soldier Systems Center has been looking at a shortened version of the XM8 as a personal defense weapon for officers and armored vehicle crews.
So far, however, the Army is unwilling to buy what the special operations community believes is a clearly superior system and is still spending money looking for another technology while Soldiers use what many say is an inferior weapon in harsh combat conditions. "The Infantry School at Fort Benning, Georgia is currently conducting a Capabilities Based Assessment to determine future Army needs," Thomas said in the statement, declining to elaborate.

[Tsunami]

I had the opportunity to shoot a 416 in NC at a contractors range that is currently all over the news... It's an amazing weapon, the HK rep buried it in sand and dunked it in water - each time the weapon performed flawlessly. Its ashame we can go drop a couple billion dollars on r&d while the soldier is forced to use an inferior weapon.
Let me be clear, I adore the AR-15 and have experienced minimal issues w/ the issue M-4. Considering the enemy is wielding the AK-47 - we are still in a good position. However - if there is technology available that can prevent a soldier's demise, the government owes it to the soldier to actively pursue that item, in this case - the HK 416.
I better be careful - starting to sound like a HK sales rep...

[504Shrek]

Will they start phasing out the M16A4?

[Panzerman]

Recent field tests have shown that 98.9% of the people that weigh in on this issue have no idea what they're talking about.

Just sayin.

[Brad]

Welcome back Jim - nice to see you around again

[Panzerman]

Thanks, and cheers! This feels like a party in a ghost town, though.

[ScreaminChief]

I wish I could say I was surprised, but I'm not. More often than not, the Army forgets to focus on the basics when it comes to making improvements and wastes it's efforts on projects that are impractical. The individual weapons system that had cameras and gps and computer HUD built into it comes to mind. It was too bulky, had limited battery life, and had too many components just waiting to break down. The Army spent millions on developing it, and may still be, and it will never be practical for a foot soldier. And then we have the M9 Beretta. Everyone knows it is under-powered. Everyone I saw in Iraq that had a choice carried something else. Hell, the police won't even use 9mm anymore for the most part. But it's still standard issue for Army Soldiers.

Don't be surprised if it takes another 5 to 10 years for the Army to replace the M-16/M-4 series weapons as standard issue, regardless of how superior a new weapon is. They are pretty good at upgrading large weapons like missles, tanks and helicoptors; but they are slow to react on individual soldier weapons.

[AF-FinalApprch]

I've seen some examples of this, especially on the history or military channels. They were putting together ideas that started to chase after the stuff in video games like halo. It contained HUD's in their helmets, some type of material engineered body armor, constant updated information using UAVs, and the list went on. I sat there thinking that there is no way the ordinary foot soldier is going to be efficient in this. It was way to complicated, heavy, battery problems, and most importantly way to expensive to issue to soldiers. I do not know why designers keep going for this, its almost like they've never seen any type of active duty (which wouldn't surprise me with the amount of outside contractors that have been brought in to help with financial issues), I have never seen combat but I can definitely see that it is in no way a practical implementation of technology to the battlefield.

[Panzerman]

Originally Posted by ScreaminChief

And then we have the M9 Beretta. Everyone knows it is under-powered. Everyone I saw in Iraq that had a choice carried something else. Hell, the police won't even use 9mm anymore for the most part. But it's still standard issue for Army Soldiers.

Once again...how many wounds have you seen inflicted by 9mm? Everyone might think they know it's underpowered, but most people don't know a goddamn thing about wound ballistics, either.

Stopping power = shot placement, and that's it. If I shot you in the torso and obliterated your heart with a 7.62x54mm round, you would most likely still have freedom of action for 10-15 seconds before you passed out from lack of oxygen to your brain. Does that mean that a full sized 7.62 round is underpowered? No, but it means that if you don't hit somebody in the brain or the upper spine (with anything short of .50), they're not going down easily.

Same can be said of pistol cartridges - .40 S&W or .45ACP is not going to knock someone off their feet where a 9mm wound allow them to keep fighting. It's all about where the target gets a hole drilled in them.

People just falling down and dying when shot is pure Hollywood inspired fantasy, and it leads to these constant claims that either the M-16 or the M9 is woefully underpowered. It's all bullshit.

Edit: and by the way, the police are about the last authority on gunfighting you should appeal to.

[ScreaminChief]

I never said the M4 was underpowered. I said the Army is slow to change individual soldier weapons even if there is a better one out there. The M4 and M16 use ammo that is designed to take advantage of it's smaller size. Pistol ammo, at least 9mm ball, isn't as sofisticated. The military uses it because it was a compromise with NATO. I've owned 9mm sidearms and have had them issued to me for training and combat. They are an adequate weapon, not a good one.

[Panzerman]

What I'm saying is that your statement on the 9mm being underpowered has no foundation in reality. "Power" in a pistol round is such an insignificant factor in lethality that it almost doesn't merit mention. If it's got enough energy to penetrate a human skull or open an artery, it works.

And what's "better" in a service weapon is very debatable. The M9 is simple to use, safe to carry, fairly rugged, has a high magazine capacity, and...it's cheap. What the heck are we going to replace it with? A Glock .40 or something?

The reason that you don't see new infantry weapons hitting the operating forces every few years is that it's been 50 years since there was a major advance in small arms technology. It's not like the HK416 or a USP40 is going to revolutionize our infantry combat capabilities - as opposed to something like the F-22 or DDX, that really have the potential to change the rules by which our enemies are forced to fight. The Army's small arms research goes towards the same end - an incrimental upgrade would definately fall victim to the law dimishing returns, wheras a weapon that could really change the battlefield in our favor would be priceless. So guess where the money (rightfully) goes?

[ScreaminChief]

Originally Posted by Panzerman

What I'm saying is that your statement on the 9mm being underpowered has no foundation in reality. "Power" in a pistol round is such an insignificant factor in lethality that it almost doesn't merit mention. If it's got enough energy to penetrate a human skull or open an artery, it works.

A .22 pistol will kill you if I shoot you in the head or the heart. Do you want to take it into battle? The fact is that when the military changed from the .45 to the 9mm, they downgraded the standard issue sidearm. It was a change that had no benefit other than a higher capacity magazine.

The other thing is you keep saying it is all about shot placement. Well, that's true on a target range at 30 yards. Real enemies don't hold still, so even those of us that are above average shooters may not get a headshot in a real situation. Plus, if you are grabbing for your sidearm then several things have already gone wrong. It may be all someone can do just to get a shot to connect in that situation. It would be nice to know the round would do some damage.

A 9mm slug travels at about 1150 fps. A .45 cal slug travels at about 1400 fps. That combined with the bigger size produces a larger s