Hill Aides to Test M4 Alternatives
July 11, 2008
Military.com|by Christian Lowe

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.

Over the past year the Army has taken fire from M4 critics who say there are better options available to troops, weapons that require less intensive maintenance and fire more lethal rounds. While the Army -- which is responsible for procuring small arms for all the services -- continues to stand by the M4 and M16, a small group of tenacious senators, including Oklahoma Republican James Coburn, have pressed the issue, forcing the service to subject the M4 to rigorous environmental tests and pushing for side-by-side competitions with several M4 alternatives.

"There's no urgent need to improve the M4, it's clearly working better than the M16," the senior senate aide said. "Our concern is that, urgent or not, we really ought to be improving it on par with technological improvements [and] not be wedded to an older weapon just because that's the way we've always been doing it."

While the aide declined to list all the companies participating in the demo, congressional and industry sources say the shoot will feature the standard 5.56mm M4 carbine, the FNH USA-build Mk-17 -- which fires a 7.62mm round -- and a modified "M4-style" rifle that fires a new 6.8mm special purpose cartridge round, among others.

The 6.8mm SPC round was born of a 6-month program launched by the interagency Technical Support Working Group which looked into how an M4 or M16 could be easily modified to fire a round that had better ballistic characteristics than the current arsenal when fired from a short barrel.

According to the TSWG, the so-called "modified upper receiver group" that accommodates the 6.8mm round "can be installed on [government-issued] M4 carbine lower receivers by operators in the field quickly and without tools for an immediate, considerable increase in projectile weight, surface area, and on-target terminal performance."

"The 6.8mm MURG offers improved combat capability and user survivability over comparable 5.56mm platforms," a TSWG statement said.

A consistent criticism of the M4 has been the 5.56 round's perceived lack of stopping power. A 2006 Center for Naval Analyses report conducted for the Army showed 30 percent of Soldiers surveyed wanted a rifle with a more deadly round.

"Across weapons, Soldiers have requested weapons and ammunition with more stopping power/lethality," the report said.

And one special operations Soldier who spoke to Military.com couldn't agree more.

"I know that when I'm shooting at someone I want to be confident that when I hit him, he's going to go down," the Special Forces operator said during a recent interview. "That's why I like the AK and its 7.62 round. It'll drop whatever you're aiming at."

The Army brushes off such criticism, saying lethality is closely tied to marksmanship. If you hit a target in the right place, you'll stop him, Army leaders argue.

The point of the July 11 test shoot is to allow manufacturers to showcase their M4 alternatives before an audience that's becoming more influential on small arms procurement decisions. The senate group tried to hold a similar demo last year, but the Army abruptly pulled out when news reports of the event leaked out, senate sources said.

Participants will have the opportunity to observe the effects of different caliber rounds in ballistic jelly, be shown how to fire each weapon and, of course, there will be some hands-on time as well.

Colorado Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar is heavily involved in the M4 alternative push and wants a competitive process that rewards the kind of innovation that leads to a host of choices when the M4 is re-bid in June of next year.

"Senator Salazar's concern is that the process itself could stifle industry innovation, it can result in lower weapons reliability and it can increase costs," said Salazar spokesman, Matt Lee-Ashley.

"He's going to work through the Army and the Armed Services Committee to make sure that when [the M4] is re-competed next June the process is open, that it's based on performance-based requirements and that it encourages industry innovation."

I've followed this development with great interest (as both a MilSciFi writer and weapons designer), in a way its history repeating itself. Way back when, the US Army use to issue .38 caliber sidearms; during the Philippine campaign against the rebels, the .38 inch didn't have the stopping power needed to put down a drug-crazed attacker; this gave rise to larger .45 caliber round used in the M1911. So now the powers-that-be are looking at retrofitting the M4s for pretty much the same reason. The 6.8mm does have the stopping power and accuracy need, but it's basically a step towards the AKs 7.62x39mm "sledgehammer-like" round. My only question is will Colt try to stop them from patent infringement; and is there a reasonable stockpile of the new rounds and receivers to make a difference for the rank and file, or is it special ops only?

I think that the 6.8mm is probably intended as a replacement for the 5.56 round all around although I don't know if that means M249 SAWs will be rechambered for 6.8mm as well. As for the 7.62x39 being a sledgehammer, while I don't know the exact ballistics of the round I'd hardly call it a sledgehammer, a mallet maybe but not a sledge hammer. For all its fearsome reputation with the AK the 7.62x39 round is really nothing than a short .30 calibre round and is a good bit smaller/shorter than the 7.62 NATO/.308 round which is probably closer to a sledgehammer than the 7.62x39. The AK family (in 7.62x39) is controllable (don't how controllable, but controllable) firing full auto while the M14 firing the 7.62 NATO round was considered to be very difficult to control under full auto which in part led to the adoption of the M16.

Just a point of clarification, the Phillipine Insurection (or Campaign) was by Filipinos in general and not muslim rebels. The Filipinos were raising up against Spain, but it became an American problem when Spain gave up the Philiphine as part of the cost of losing the Spanish-American War. The standard issue .38 caliber revolver was very ineffective against the determined (and some may have been on drugs and/or booze) foes which drove the US Army to replace the .38s with the .45 ACP.

The nice part about the 6.8mm round is that the length of the round is the same as the 5.56mm round, but due to the speed and size of the round, it actually penetrates deeper then the 7.62mmx39mm AK47 round. It travels farther, is more accurate, kicks less, considered a better all around bullet then either the 5.56mm and the 7.62x39. The 6.8mm round will only require the new upper receivers chambered for the 6.8mm round. So in theory, the SAW would just need to have a barrel chambered for 6.8mm and new feed gearing for the cubbier round.

Riceball: You are quite right, that the reason we don't use the NATO 7.62mm in an assault rifle is the problems of to much recoil, making full-auto fire very inaccurate, such as with the M14; but the 6.8mm seem to have gotten around that.

After watching a weapons specialist fire the M16, then an AK-47, at a group of breezeway blocks at under 50 yards. I was impressed with the way the soviet round tore it appart, while our stuff just punched nice neat holes in to. There is no question that the 5.56mm is more accurate at range, and with the boat-tail design of the bullet (makes it tumble when it hits a target), its still a man-stopper; but for close in fighting (besides a shotgun), I would prefer the bigger round.

I beleive "Futureweapons" covered the 6.8mm in one of their segments, it did look good.

.50 Beowulf...gots ta get my hands on one of the ARs with that upper to try out

I really like everything I have read on the 6.8mm. A buddy of mine is trying to get one (read: trying to afford one...these things are expensive). If he does, at least I'll get a chance to fire one on semi-auto to see how well the recoil is handled.

I did like what the guy said about lethality being tied more to marksmanship than caliber. While pretty much true, but combat stress will not change the ballistics of a round. It can easily change the shooter's marksmanship ability. Much tougher to aim correctly when rounds are flying at you than just shooting at the range. Personally, I'd like to give the guys all the help we can. If you hit someone directly in the heart or eye socket, a .22 is just as good as anything. Chances are, you ain't gonna have that kind of steady aim when being shot at. You hit someone in the shoulder with a heavy round that does serious soft and hard tissue damage, chances are they ain't getting back up (and if they do...I doubt they will be shooting very accurately at you anymore).

My take (as pertains to combat use):
5.56mm= light, controllable "spray and pray" round
7.62x39= heavier, yet somewhat controllable "spray and pray" round
7.62NATO= Heavy, accurate round with proven stopping power, not very controllable in assault rifles (although very contollable in the M60 family)
6.8 SPC= good compromise between all the above (at least from what I have read), but ammo factories would have to be re-tooled to start pumping these out in the mass quantities the US military would need

Just my opinions on the rounds.