The Next Infantry Assault rifle for the United States

[Waylander]

If you list FN as a company which could supply the US Army with american made firearms you could name any other international company, too.

They just happen to have a north american division but every other foreign company is going to open one too, if it not already exists, if it could get such a contract.

Right now the ability of american companies to come up with a good infantry weapon is questionable.

There are SCARs in use with SOCOM, H&K 416 with the SEALs, M240 and the SAW with everybody and the USMC IAR is also a slightly modified H&K 416.

Not a stellar situation for the US companies in terms of reputation.

 

[Thiel]

There are several questions to ask?
Also, newer ammo with expanding bullets could be used in AFGHANISTAN. The enemy there are not signatories to the HAGUE or GENEVA conventions.

That's not really how the Hague convention works.
By signing it, the US has effectively outlawed expanding bullets in its armed forces, no matter who they happens to be shooting at.

 

[golden]

That's not really how the Hague convention works.
By signing it, the US has effectively outlawed expanding bullets in its armed forces, no matter who they happens to be shooting at.

Thiel,

This is getting a little off the subject, but that is not the finding of U.S. military lawyers. They have ruled that expanding ammo can be used against non-signatory combatants. The U.S. goes by our interpretation of the treaty,not Europe's or anyone else.

Recently, the U.S. was examing the use of a bullet sold by FEDERAL AMMUNITION called the EFMJ (Expanding Full Metal Jacket). This round has a piece of plastic under the nose of the bullet jacket. It has pre-stressed fractures and will flatten and expand on impact. It was designed by the inventor of the HYDRO-SHOK bullet and works with an expansion similar to the older hollow point bullets.

Over the years, their have been challenges to a number of weapons as being inhumane and they were overcome.

For instance, napalm was charged with being cruel and inhuman just as flamethrowers were. The argument for flame weapons is that they kill be suffocation as the oxygen is exhausted during the burning. The reality can be something else, but these weapons are still used.

I also heard that the Russian's once challenged the use of Gatling guns by the U.S. Now the Russians make them.

 

[eckherl]

If you list FN as a company which could supply the US Army with american made firearms you could name any other international company, too.

They just happen to have a north american division but every other foreign company is going to open one too, if it not already exists, if it could get such a contract.

Right now the ability of american companies to come up with a good infantry weapon is questionable.

There are SCARs in use with SOCOM, H&K 416 with the SEALs, M240 and the SAW with everybody and the USMC IAR is also a slightly modified H&K 416.

Not a stellar situation for the US companies in terms of reputation.

Just a side note Waylander,

HK has announced that it will be setting up a facility in the U.S to manufacture the 416, rumor is that this rifle is in contention for future military sales and the civilian version will be sold to the American public.

 

[Waylander]

One doesn't get such a contract without setting up shop in the US. There are jobs involved after all...

I am still curious about the future of the USMC IAR idea. I am convinced that it is just an obvious trick to sneak in a new standard assault rifle through the backdoor.

 

[fretburner]

^ I saw an episode of History Channel's "Lock and Load" where they compared the Japanese Machine Gun versus the Marine's back in WW2, and pointed out that among the major short-comings of the Japanese weapon was that it was Magazine-fed versus Belt-Fed. Although I'm sure the new designs are much more resistant to jamming, I find it rather unusual that they adopt that magazine-fed machine gun for their new IAR.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

^ I saw an episode of History Channel's "Lock and Load" where they compared the Japanese Machine Gun versus the Marine's back in WW2, and pointed out that among the major short-comings of the Japanese weapon was that it was Magazine-fed versus Belt-Fed. Although I'm sure the new designs are much more resistant to jamming, I find it rather unusual that they adopt that magazine-fed machine gun for their new IAR.

Keep in mind that the employment of LMGs on both sides during that point in time was vastly different that the way SAWs are used now. During that point in time, the US Army had one .30 cal light machine gun per squad, plus another section at the company level (typically attached to HQ company). I'd presume the Marine Corps did something similar with their M1919s and based off of what I've read, so did the Japanese.

This comparison isn't really an analog as to how the SAW is used by the Marine Corps today, since now the M249s are as far down as the fireteam level. This would likely lead to a different tactical employment and use of the weapon.

How you use a squad-level LMG and how you use a fireteam-level weapon will be different, and that's going to lead to a different set of ideal traits and design characteristics for each weapon.

In fact, the best point of comparison (from a force structure/employment standpoint) would probably be the BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle). Towards the end of the war, the Marine Corps reorganized into four-man fireteams similar to the ones used today. In every fireteam was an "Automatic Rifleman" carrying a BAR, which incidently was a magazine fed-weapon.

On a completely unrelated note. As I'm sure you are aware, some FN MINMIs (the basis for the M249) are configured to handle M4 and M16 magazines. So in a pinch, it too, can be a magazine-fed weapon.

 

[fretburner]

^ Now I'm more confused. And I don't trust wiki at all, so...

After I googled "fire team machine gun", it gave me 4 foot soldiers with 1 of them equipped with a SAW to lay down suppressive fire. And so, is a squad essentially 2 fire teams? And that in a squad, there's no longer going to be anyone carrying a belt-fed machine gun? And since a platoon is 4 squads, will the belt-fed machine gun go away for light infantry?

 

[Go229]

The Belt-Fed machine gun is the main offensive and suppressive firepower of the squad. It can't go away.

 

[fretburner]

^ So for a 10-man squad, 1 of the remaining 2 men will have a belt-feed machine gun? If this is the case, then there's a LOT of firepower to a Marines' squad. I like it

 

[Kilo 2-3]

^ So for a 10-man squad, 1 of the remaining 2 men will have a belt-feed machine gun? If this is the case, then there's a LOT of firepower to a Marines' squad. I like it

Belt-fed machine guns tend to be crew- or semi-crew-served weapons. Even in the case of the belt-fed 5.56mm M249 SAW (which is more or less a fireteam-level weapon), there are two soldiers/marines tasked with operating the gun, the gunner/Automatic Rifleman and the "a-gunner"/Assistant Automatic Rifleman. In the case of a larger weapon like the 7.62mm M240/FN MAG or the M60, the crewing requirements can increase to up to three soldiers/Marines. This latter crewing number is contingent as to how the weapon is set up and the role it is being used in.

Integrating a medium machine gun at the squad level might or might not be worthwhile

(Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW), M249 Light Machine Gun)

 

[MadMike]

Infantry Assault Rifle.

The thing is, is that the M16a1,a2,a3,a4 and the M4 Carbine will soon be very outdated, with Russia developing more complex Kalashnikov variants and the rest of NATO moving on to new weapons being produced in Europe.

There was while testing for the XM8 assault riffle, however was canceled.

I believe that the next candidate for a new Infantry riffle of the United States is the SCAR-L which is already in a lot of use in the US army rangers.

Not only that the SCAR 'variants' can be deployed as Assault and Heavy Battle riffles as well as CQB and CQBR forms

I want to know if there are any other better options?

What do you think:ar15

Personally, as a former paratrooper (504th PIR) and a lifelong deer hunter, I prefer heavier calibers such as the 308 cal. (Springfield M1A1) or 7mm (which has a flatter trajectory). to the 5.56mm, which has a max. eff. range of almost 2,000 meters, but lacks knockdown power. In addition, the M16 was first fielded in the middle of a war, which, I feel, was a mistake since the Army already had the reliable M-14. Because of its propensity to malfunction when dirty, soldiers quickly lost confidence in the M16. I really like the versatility offered by Remington's Adaptive Combat Rifle with three interchangeable calibers: 5.56mm, 6.5mm and 6.8mm. But why mess with a totally-new round when we have the tried- and- true 5.56mm, 7mm, 308 cal. and 30-06 cal. rounds???

 

[Chino]

... the 5.56mm, which has a max. eff. range of almost 2,000 meters, but lacks knockdown power.

You must be mistaken. Do you even understand the meaning of "maximum effective range"?

 

[eckherl]

One doesn't get such a contract without setting up shop in the US. There are jobs involved after all...

I am still curious about the future of the USMC IAR idea. I am convinced that it is just an obvious trick to sneak in a new standard assault rifle through the backdoor.

With the U.S signing on to the UN Small Arms Treaty HK would also not run into any type of import issues if this becomes a case in my country.

And in regards to the Marines thinking, who knows what they are up to but I would not put it past them.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

With the U.S signing on to the UN Small Arms Treaty HK would also not run into any type of import issues if this becomes a case in my country.

And in regards to the Marines thinking, who knows what they are up to but I would not put it past them.

The H&K416 or FN SCAR would be nice.

 

[MadMike]

Range of M16A2

You must be mistaken. Do you even understand the meaning of "maximum effective range"?

You had me runnin' all over the house looking for my Smart Book from Basic Training, Couldn't find it, though. But, here are the stats from Colt for the A2 version:
Max. Range: 3,600 meters
Max. Effective Range: a. Area Target - 2,624 feet (800-meters)
b. Pt. Target- 1,804 feet (550-meters)
Sorry for the inaccuracy. Should have checked my facts first. I still remember my M16's Serial Number, however - 6400608. Semper Primus!

 

[Chino]

You had me runnin' all over the house looking for my Smart Book from Basic Training, Couldn't find it, though. But, here are the stats from Colt for the A2 version:
Max. Range: 3,600 meters
Max. Effective Range: a. Area Target - 2,624 feet (800-meters)
b. Pt. Target- 1,804 feet (550-meters)
Sorry for the inaccuracy. Should have checked my facts first. I still remember my M16's Serial Number, however - 6400608. Semper Primus!

Well, these numbers are available when you google "m16 max effective range".

And why are you quoting rifle serial numbers etc? Trying hard to prove something Mr Paratrooper/Deer Hunter?

 

[old faithful]

mmm if i had some one firing 5.56mm at me from 800m, i wouldnt be too concerned. I mean, yes id still be careful, but not overly worried. now if it was 7.62mm nato, that would be a different story. I have hit targets with 5.56mm at 600m with a F89 minimi, even saw the tracer rickocheting inside the target (concrete pill box) which gave me some confidance. we (my section) inspected the target, and saw evidence of the hits, chipped concrete etc, was good to see it. Then we went back and hit the same target with our other gun (Mag58) and did the same exercise, and i can tell you the difference between 7.62 and 5.56 is night and day. the 7.62 chew the opening of the pill box apart, and the hits were a lot more devestating.
I doubt that at 550m, an M16 or F88 Styer would be "effective". Bear in mind that bith the minimi and mag58 were fired from bipods.

 

[Chino]

When I was a recruit, our instructors said that our M16A1 (with M193 cartridge) was only effective out to 300m. This may have improved with the M16A2 and M855... I wouldn't know.

But without the benefit of tracers - you would have to be really good marksman to be able to fire useful accurate shots compensating for trajectory drop, wind factor etc beyond 300m with a 5.56mm rifle. May be easier on a clear day at the range where the targets are standing stock still and don't shoot back.

 

[Tactics Master]

i've got a cousin in the army he has tested the both the SCAR-L (light round) and SCAR-H (heavy round) and he loves them better than the M16s and the M4. There is also a sniper rifle called the XM25 (fires a 25mm explosive round) that has some sensors (i forgot what they were ) and focuses the scope on the place that your supposed (on account of the enviromental conditions) to fire and you just pull the trigger and fires the rounds into the target. There is a dial that you turn to a number (number of feet) before or after hitting something