Army Modernization Strategy 2010 on the M4


This is what the recently published Army Modernization Strategy 2010 report says about the M4 competition …

“Additionally, the Army will enhance SaaS lethality capabilities through several individual weapon initiatives. In an effort to provide our Soldiers with the best individual weapon available, the Army will sponsor a full and open competition for a new carbine. This competition may provide a possible replacement for the current M4 Carbine. Simultaneously, to meet immediate needs, the Army will
improve the durability and reliability of the M4 Carbine.”

[ Many thanks to Lace for emailing me the info. ]





Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


Advertisement

  • SpudGun

    I know this is going to sound sad, but I wish they’d film the carbine competition in a reality TV show type way. We could root for our favorites, boo the baddies and have audiences of over excited middle aged men with banners that read ‘We love you SCAR!’ or ‘ACR FTW!’. I’m not sure why, but Simon Cowell should be there too, perhaps telling HK to show some humility or how he likes Colt’s folksy roots. It would be kewl.

    I really do have too much time on my hands. 🙁

  • Lance

    Like I said when I found this article. WHile the army is playing with the ACR and a few other rifle the main focas is to provide a better and upgraded M-4 to the service. The H&K 416 and SR-556 are two front runners.

  • subase

    I don’t see the point, with the 416/ACR/SR-556 as an upgraded M4, it’s still a completely different rifle, it uses similiar manual of arms and the M16 magazine but that’s it.

    It would just be better to just get an addon gas piston kit (Osprey) and a nickel boron coated bolt. And if they are splurging, Magpul polymer magazines. That would be pretty much equivalent to the ‘next generation’ rifles they have now. Caliber and barrel length change out isn’t relevant for the infantry.

    They should save the real rifle upgrade for a bullpup, then their pipsqueak round will actually have some stopping power.

  • Lance

    I agree if we got to another rifle 6.8 or 6.5 should be the caliber. But a bullpup yuck! the Austrialians went to the F88 and they regerted and bouth M-4s for most troops in Iraq. The 416 and SR-66 are differnt from a M-4 but they use a M-4 lower and bolt/carrier so it would be a upgrade.

  • subase

    I’d hardly call it juts an upgrade, but they want a heavier barrel don’t they?

    As for the bullpup, Kel tec’s RFB has solved all their problems. And the future can only get brighter. The fraction of a second longer reloads is a small price to pay for full length barrels. 5.56 fmg is an established poor man stopper out of an M4 barrel. The RFB has an 18 inch barrel and is shorter than an M4 with stock folded.

    Also Australian special forces uses the M4 but only because it relies on U.S supplies. All the rest of normal Australian soldiers in Afghanistan (and previously in Iraq) use the Aug and there has been no complaints, although they haven’t done any fighting admittedly.

  • Lance

    Wrong Subase there is several units in Austrualian Army has given M-4 to several units in the sand box. The Bullpup is also less accurate than standerd rilfes. AUGs and L-85s have mad many complaints over accuarcy past 300 yeards. Most countires have abondond Bullpups and or went to regualr configs. IE, Italy Germany Russia.

  • subase

    Just because you say something doesn’t make it true Lance.

    But the point is, bullpups have matured, starting with the Kel tec RFB, which means a bullpup would make the best upgrade in the future.

    • please guys, no more bullpup vs. non-bullpup arguments.

  • JoeB

    In my opinion, they should do what Nikonov did with the AN-94 and build a rifle 4 generations infront of the current rifles, therefore, the rifle would be practical and in service for many years to come. In my opinion, these rifles (although a big step from the M4) are nothing outstanding to rifles being produced by everyone else today. If your going to replace a gun in a country who has a military so big that its expensive to preform the task of rearmmament, then make a rifle that will last for many years to come. Does that mean i want us to accuire the AN-94, not nessicaraly, but follow the path Nikonov did, make a gun for the ages, not for 30 years