BF2S Forums Army won't field rifle deemd superior to M4

Skorpy-chan wrote:

I do the research looking for stuff to supply a fictional mercenary company with.

rdx-fx wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,131317,00.html?ESRC=marine.nl

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.

A problem I've seen firsthand on the M16a2;
Fine sand in desert conditions will jam up the relatively tight-tolerance bolt carrier.
Condensation in arctic conditions will literally freeze the bolt in place a few minutes after firing 5-10 rounds.
In temperate conditions (where the majority of US training bases are...), it works fine.

Stingray24 wrote:

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.

Gee-Wiz toys are nice, in the right situation. Rugged, reliable, dependable is what you want in the hands of an infantryman.  Historically, the best rifles have been the ones that can be counted on to "go bang when you pull the trigger - and put the round where you pointed it" regardless of the abuse/misuse of the operator.  Over-designed weapons are good weapons.  Look at the history of the M2 (in use since WW-2)..

I think alot of the hesitation in procuring the HK416 is directly related to the fact that most all of the generals in charge of such things, are Vietnam veterans that (bitterly) remember the ..ah.. issues they suffered when they, as young lieutenants, were used to "beta test" the M-16 in combat.  This, in spite of the great lengths HK has gone to to allay those fears.

Spearhead wrote:

What I'm hoping someone can explain to me is why the US military isnt seriously considering bullpup rifles... I mean, you get rifle-lengthed barrels while the gun is only the length of a carbine, right?  It just doesnt make sense why someone wouldnt want an AUG, FN2000 or some other bullpup rifle.  Can anyone here answer this question?  Gunslinger?

All of the below is based on the average soldier.  The one that had probably never fired a weapon before Basic Training..  The one that really doesn't want to study the intricacies of marksmanship..

Only explanation I can offer is that the bullpup rifles are different.  You handle an M16-derivative rifle for a few years, and you get used to the balance of it... the way it handles and feels when you're carrying it around.  I think it was a good move by HK to keep the general look and feel of the M16, while vastly improving the way it works.  No need to retrain the average soldier's habits and "muscle memory".

Even the M60, M240, M249 feel similar to the M16 - on purpose, I'd think.  The weights are very different, but the balance is similar.. the feel is easier to get used to, when transitioning from a M60 to a M16, etc.

Bullpup weapons, the magazine is behind your pistol grip rather than forward.  Takes a little getting used to.  The little bit of delay that could be seen as a potential fatal liability, if you just dumped such a weapon on your troops in the middle of combat.  For a professional marksman, or a "high speed" soldier, that is a 'student of marksmanship' - it's a non-issue.  For an average soldier, it could be fatal.

Bullpup weapons also have supposed issues with the long linkage between the trigger (towards the middle of the weapon) and the actual bolt (towards the rear).  Where an M16 has the trigger group right below the firing pin, the L80 has a long linkage to connect the two.  Supposedly, this detracts from reliability, accuracy, and trigger pull.  (Personally, I have a hard time imagining a more imprecise trigger pull than the M16.. short of the $0.10 "build-them-in-your-resistance-cell-garage" sten gun)

Similar to the above reason, the firing chamber being right next to the firer's cheek makes some of the procurement-types nervous about 1)catastrophic failure of the bolt during firing, that close to a soldier's face  (silly reason, but... procurement types don't shoot.. ever.. apparently).

Also, a myth about bullpups is that the chamber being next to the firer makes the report(bang) seem louder to a novice shooter - worsening their recoil-flinch.

Finally, add to the myth-list, the fear that the shorter length of the weapon will increase the risk that a novice shooter will somehow put their hand in front of the barrel when they shoot (?!?!).

Overall, I think the US is unlikely to adapt a bullpup style weapon primarily because of the large list of issues the UK had with the adoption of the L80 series (before HK 'fixed' it).

Edit:  Another issue with the bullpup weapon is accuracy.  For optimal accuracy, NOTHING should touch the barrel at any point forward of the chamber.  Has to do with predictable harmonics of the barrel, and not having anything interfere with the bend of the barrel (i.e., don't yank down on the sling of the M16).  On a bullpup weapon, it's difficult to design one so that nothing touches the barrel, when that's about 9" from the back of the weapon.

S3v3N wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

my m16a4 was broken in iraq, but, i kinda bubblegummed it to fire because they didnt have the parts to replace.  really dangerous but i knew what i was doing.  one time though, WOW.  id rather not say.....but, wow.

Field Armorer FTW.  I've done it too.. and yeah wow.

M60 could be 'upgraded' if you talked your armorer into putting in the 'wrong' NSN for the buffer spring, and a few other part. Had to make sure you took care of it a little better, but.. 2 minute part swap = almost-SAW ROF.

For the life of me, I've no idea what you two were doing with your M16's though.  Only thing I can think of would possibly be the sear group area and a sudden OMFG-ROF? "set your selector switch to 30 round burst, and watch your... wait?! WTF?"

rdx-fx wrote:

herrr_smity wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

HK's page for the HK416;
http://www.hkd-usa.com/core.php?dat=Y29 … xhc2g9MQ==

Army Times article on the HK416
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/

Another article on the HK416, at hkpro.com
http://www.hkpro.com/hk416.htm

Picture of the HK416 gas piston, on an early prototype;
http://www.vlar.net/HKM4_Gas_System_4.jpg

Picture of the HK417 (7.62mm version of the HK416
http://www.vlar.net/416studio14.jpg

Images are from 1) Unknown source, possibly HKPRO.com 2) HK press photo

the hk416 is the new main firearm for the norwegian army, wohoo

Damn.  Now I might have to post to the "who's army would you want to go to war with" thread, and pick Norway.
(Kidding).
Nah.. I'm of German/Irish/Russian/Spanish ancestry.. A program of selective breeding to produce the Quizatz Hader... nah, just 4 great races that excel at 1) Getting drunk and 2) Starting World-Class brawls.. sometimes both at the same time..  Guess that makes me an All-American Mutt.

Seriously, in an ideal world, Army procurement would get their act together and adopt the HK417 in 7.62mm.  7.62x51 isn't the best cartridge in the world, but it's 1) Already a NATO standard round 2) The weapon exists already 3) it's very very similar to the M-16 in 'user interface' 3) targets stay down alot better when hit with the 7.62, rather than the 5.56 4) There's a huge body of research on the 7.62x51's ballistics/design/optimal-powder-loads

Last edited by The_Mac (2007-04-15 09:01:47)