Army opens competition for replacement of M-16, M-4

Status
Not open for further replies.
They want a numerical display to show the number of bullets remaining. Someone stole that right out of a video game!
 
Wow, he can even shoot it with one hand tied behind his back!

I guess that was to show the lack or muzzle climb during full-auto?
Click to expand...

He is also an HK employee who makes a living out of shooting and selling machine guns. Give the rifle to an ordinary soldier and have him do that. That's the real test.

"Interested companies will be required to submit four of each type of the four different variants by late spring."
Click to expand...

If I'd have know this was coming up, I could have submitted my rifle... They need to give more warning.
 
carp - the army (and military) is not interested in saving money, only wasting it on their new toys.

Something like 1,000 people at Picatinny Arsenal are working on developing this lousy rifle. They need something to charge to on their timesheets.
 
Wonder if the FN F2000 will be in on the competition. Perhaps the SCAR as well? Will be interesting to see all the entrants...
 
There probably are a number of rifles made by different manufacturers that will submit a design to the Army. Some will be great, some will not be great. But the Army will select what it wants and it's typicaly is not based on what will be the best.
 
Clearly, the best way for the Army to go on this one is to select among the bidders for the most effective weapon system. This will presumably cost quite a bit of money.

Which they will simply have to recoup by dumping a huge number of M-16s and M-4s onto the market. I know I'd do my patriotic duty to support our military by making a donation in return for an M-16.
 
Lets see the parallels. We introduce a pos rifle in the middle of a war. Commissioned by McNamara who along with his think tank felt technology could defeat the communist in Viet Nam. Problem with the rifle probably led to countless of lives lost due to Powder selection lack of forward assist, Stoners insistence that the barrel didn’t need to be chromed lined and on and on. So now we have a reliable platform, little undersized but reliable.

Enter 2005. Rumsfield is almost a clone of McNamara who also thinks technology is the answer to all our problems. We are going to introduce a new mouse gun in the middle of a war with a shorter barrel? Full of electronic technology to go wrong. What we don't have enough KIA's or what. ***. :banghead:
 
*reads article* uh, ok...... :uhoh:

If I did business the way the army does I'd be out of buisness.... :scrutiny:

Sounds more like a gameplay for a Practical Joke on other Gun mfr's...
"Ok, what we'll do is we'll Choose one then have a Bogus Competition just to annoy the others & make them loose money...." :rolleyes:

that aside I would say that most of the other Contenders have better designs than the XM-8 &the XM-29.

Take the F2000 for EG, Weighs Less, More Accurate, & most importantly is already a Finished Product, Not just a Concept/Prototype.

Also the 6.8SPC M4 Conversion, Keep the platform, Increase Caliber, Refine overall design, Save Billions of $.

My $0.02
 
Which they will simply have to recoup by dumping a huge number of M-16s and M-4s onto the market. I know I'd do my patriotic duty to support our military by making a donation in return for an M-16.
Click to expand...

In that case I would take out a second mortage for 10 grand if I could. :D
 
Well, considering that H&K bailed on the XM8 and sold their rights to Boeing, I wouldn't count on the XM8 winning automatically. Especially since H&K never built that plant in Georgia (no jobs for constituents = no votes from Committee members to appropriate money for your latest boondoggle).
 
Which they will simply have to recoup by dumping a huge number of M-16s and M-4s onto the market. I know I'd do my patriotic duty to support our military by making a donation in return for an M-16.
Click to expand...

Not going to happen, unfortunately. No matter what kind of welding, whacking, and gluing is done the BATF will classify those rifles as machine guns. Once an MG receiver, always an MG. The receiver would have to be destroyed and replaced with a semi-automatic one. No, the M16s will either be scrapped or sold to other countries.
 
Not going to happen, unfortunately. No matter what kind of welding, whacking, and gluing is done the BATF will classify those rifles as machine guns. Once an MG receiver, always an MG. The receiver would have to be destroyed and replaced with a semi-automatic one. No, the M16s will either be scrapped or sold to other countries.
Click to expand...
Why not sell off the M16s as parts kits? We do this with other full-auto weapons, such as with the FAL and AK. If the price were reasonable, I'd see no reason not to replace those "evil" full-auto M16 receivers with new semi-auto receivers.

The AR design is so easy to rebuild, and new receivers so affordable, that it'd be foolish not to part out the M16s and sell 'em to citizens. About the only realistic barrier to this would be the political ramifications.
 
The OICW Increment I is intended to replace current weapon systems, including the M-4, M-16, M-249 squad automatic weapon and selected M-9 pistols for the active Army, the notice states.
Click to expand...

A sense of deja vu sets in. IIRC the M-14 was brought out to replace the BAR, the Garand, the M-1 Carbine and the kitchen sink. With such expectations, there was no way it could make the grade in the miliatary's bizarre self-contained reality. Around and around we go.

Why not just put .243 or 6.5 Grendel uppers on the M-16's as the existing stock wears out and save everyone some time and money.
 
M-16 and M-4 upper receivers surplused? That'd be sweet. I don't see why not- We already see surplus M-16A1 upper receivers on the market. You could convert an M-16 to semi-automatic (even well enough to appease the BATF) with about $150; say about $100 for a new lower, and $50 for fire control parts.
 
They cannot be surplussed for the same reason that M14s cannot be surplussed. Once a MG, always an MG.

For the record, the OICW in its full form is NOT intended to be issued to all troops. I gather it is to be a one-or-two-per-squad type deal. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Army Times article: M4/M16 replacement
Replies
16
Views
1K
Spark
S
R
  • Locked
M-4's Jamming in the 'Stan
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
160
Views
8K
Oohrah
O
T
  • Locked
SCAR by FN?
Replies
22
Views
2K
Schuey2002
S
Badger Arms
  • Locked
Army Times: OICW to be Fielded in Afganistan.
Replies
18
Views
1K
keederdag
K
M
  • Locked
M-16 Rifle May Be on Way Out of U.S. Army
2 3 4
Replies
92
Views
5K
ShaiVong
S
Back
Top