HWGRTMB
July 24, 2008
7:50 AM CST
...or, for those millions of people (like me) who detest inscrutable acronyms: here we go round the mulberry bush (again):
In a move that could ruffle the feathers of an Army command that views the Colt Defense-built M4 as the best carbine in the world, a select group of top senate staffers is gathering today to look at what could be the future of the military’s standard assault rifle.
About 30 legislative aides have signed up to attend a July 11 demonstration at Marine Corps Base Quantico, just outside Washington, D.C., that will feature weapons from various manufacturers vying to end the reign of the M16 and M4 as the U.S. military’s most fielded personal weapon.
The range day is intended to help familiarize key lawmakers with possible alternatives to the M16 and M4 once the exclusive contract with Colt Defense of West Hartford, Conn., ends in the summer of 2009, a senior senate aide told Military.com.
“When you re-compete the M4 it shouldn’t just be for the same thing we’ve been building for the last 20 to 30 years,” said the senior senate staffer who requested anonymity because the issue is so sensitive with the Army.
Yeah, I’ll bet it’s sensitive. When you’ve repeatedly sat on a porcupine, your ass is going to get sensitive.
My thoughts on poodleshooter cartridges for soldiers are well known. My disdain for the AR-15 is ditto. So I’m not going to step into this debate again, because I’ve been arguing it pretty much ever since I started blogging in 2002, and to be frank, I’m sick of it.
My position: a military bullet should be 6.5mm (.264), of about 145gr-150gr weight, and travel at about 2,500fps - 2,800fps. This will stop any human assailant, penetrate most body armor (or at least render the armor-wearing shootee incapacitated from the shock), and reach out effectively to distances up to 600 yards, if necessary. It is the best compromise between portability (weight), controllability (recoil) and effectiveness (knockdown/killing power).
I’m less of a dogmatist on the weapons platform than most people would think. Personally, I think that anything based on the FN SCAR, G3 or AK-47 platforms would be more than adequate.
Doc Russia knows more about this stuff than I ever did, and his comments are here.
But rather than get into a discussion about calibers and stopping power, I want to address the issue of replacement costs. Yeah, it will cost the Armed Forces a ton to replace the M16/M4, and it will take some training to get soldiers acquainted with new rifles.
Don’t care. The cost is irrelevant—all weapons systems have to get replaced, sooner or later—and retraining, in a force of committed volunteers (as opposed to a force of sullen conscripts) is likewise a non-issue. Most active-duty soldiers would pick up the essentials of maintaining a new weapon in a matter of minutes, and be proficient in a manner of hours. (With carryover ACOG sights, the transition to shooting a new weapon is miniscule.)
I also don’t buy the cost of retooling ammo production to make a new-caliber cartridge. Ammo manufacturers seem to have no problem setting up their lines to handle new, limited-appeal and esoteric hunting cartridges like the .300 WSM, and with the volumes promised by a .mil contract, most would do it at a moment’s notice.
Compared to the costs of introducing other weapons systems, replacing our battle rifles is a piece of cake, and the Pentagon should get their collective ass in gear quickly.
------------------------------------------------------
Before anyone gets into a caliber/platform discussion in Comments, please follow the original military.com link and read ALL the comments there first.
