US Army says goodbye to the M4 / SAW, hello SIG Next Gen. weapons

[blue2golf]

I had a chance to talk with a decorated Green Beret over drinks about this over the weekend. He was thinking that the SF teams will try to keep the M4 variants they use. He said that the consensus was that faster, more accurate follow up shots are more beneficial than what benefit the bigger, heavier platform might provide.

Kind of like the same argument you tend to get for the 9mm over heavier calibers.

Makes sense to me, especially since their SF grandads were the ones who tried out the original AR carbines in Vietnam.

 

[DadSmith]

I had a chance to talk with a decorated Green Beret over drinks about this over the weekend. He was thinking that the SF teams will try to keep the M4 variants they use. He said that the consensus was that faster, more accurate follow up shots are more beneficial than what benefit the bigger, heavier platform might provide.

Kind of like the same argument you tend to get for the 9mm over heavier calibers.

My grandfather would disagree. He would say nothing beats a M1 Garand 30-06. Of course that was the greatest generation of American War fighters. They are just naturally tougher.

 

[drillsgt]

My grandfather would disagree. He would say nothing beats a M1 Garand 30-06. Of course that was the greatest generation of American War fighters. They are just naturally tougher.

That'd be an interesting test to see today's kids in basic do a road march with an M1 Garand.

 

[Dentoro]

Didn’t Italy try this right before a world war? This echos of 7.35 Carcano. If I remember right, it was started in 1937 and the logistics of switching calibers was scraped well into the war because they couldn’t produce enough rifles or ammo. But I guess we won’t get a better excuse to send real obsolete hardcore to Ukrainian civilians while they lecture and disarm US.

 

[Noble Sniper]

A son of a very good friend of mine was an armorer for some A teams….. most ops don’t use general issue army weapons…. They use what they want.

 

[STAGE 2]

This will go down in history as one of the dumbest moves the military has made since the M14.

Someone with a clipboard decided that they wanted more ftlbs of energy, and more supersonic range in an automatic rifle for general infantry use. After we learned that was a massive mistake with the M14, and quickly dropped it for the 5.56.

We adopted volume of fire tactics and have practiced them for half of a century now. Our doctrine is based on this. The individual soldier will now have equipment not suitable for volume of fire tactics, and will no longer be able to carry the necessary amount of ammunition to fulfill the role.

I'm sure army brass cares about the lives this will cost.

By the way, folks that aren't familiar with this 6.8 cartridge. This is the .277 sig fury.
This is effectively a 7mm remington magnum in power levels, but in a 90k PSI cartridge the size of 308.
That might sound cool, but just remember that the ability to make accurate and fast follow up shots that connect are FAR more useful than the ability to miss a bunch with a vastly more powerful cartridge. And you'll have about half the ammunition, so you better not miss.

This guy gets it. And add to this it’s done by a company that royally farked the rollout of sig556, and had serious issues with their recently adopted pistol. Experimental ammunition with more recoil operating at the bleeding edge of case capacity in experimental weapons all from a company that has had serious qc problems since separating from their Swiss overseers isn’t something I’d get excited about.

 

[STAGE 2]

I'm actually happy the army has come to it's senses, and are going to a round that will actually work well beyond 400 meters.

I’d wager that people who are having problems engaging targets with the m4 and ACOG at this distance will have just as much of a problem with this platform.

This issue has been looked at a lot since our involvement in the Stan, and even there only 50% of engagements were past 300 meters. Iraq was nearly exclusively 50m or less.

The real issue, as in most cases is the Indian and not the arrow. The quote below addresses this proposition that the 556 should be replaced…


“I brought the paper up this morning during a roundtable discussion at the Pentagon with the folks from Program Executive Office – Soldier. Col. Doug Tamilio, program manager for Soldier weapons lethality (this guys weapons knowledge is unreal), said it was a very good paper, although he thought some of the conclusions were a bit out of context. Tamilio has made it mandatory reading for his shop, particularly after spending a few days down at SOCOM and hearing the splash the paper has made there.

“He’s right, the fight in Afghanistan is longer… But you’ve got to go back to where soldiers are today. Can a soldier engage beyond 300 meters accurately? The answer is probably not.” Most soldiers coming out of basic training can’t shoot expertly, except for the few sharpshooters. “It takes a while to become an expert at shooting at ranges beyond 300 meters,” he said.”

So all you are doing is giving the average grunt a weapon that is more difficult to shoot, with less ammo that as a practical matter does not increase the range of lethality of his squad. In short you are making a change to address the 5% which doesn’t work at the expense of the 95%

 

[DadSmith]

I’d wager that people who are having problems engaging targets with the m4 and ACOG at this distance will have just as much of a problem with this platform.

This issue has been looked at a lot since our involvement in the Stan, and even there only 50% of engagements were past 300 meters. Iraq was nearly exclusively 50m or less.

The real issue, as in most cases is the Indian and not the arrow. The quote below addresses this proposition that the 556 should be replaced…


“I brought the paper up this morning during a roundtable discussion at the Pentagon with the folks from Program Executive Office – Soldier. Col. Doug Tamilio, program manager for Soldier weapons lethality (this guys weapons knowledge is unreal), said it was a very good paper, although he thought some of the conclusions were a bit out of context. Tamilio has made it mandatory reading for his shop, particularly after spending a few days down at SOCOM and hearing the splash the paper has made there.

“He’s right, the fight in Afghanistan is longer… But you’ve got to go back to where soldiers are today. Can a soldier engage beyond 300 meters accurately? The answer is probably not.” Most soldiers coming out of basic training can’t shoot expertly, except for the few sharpshooters. “It takes a while to become an expert at shooting at ranges beyond 300 meters,” he said.”

So all you are doing is giving the average grunt a weapon that is more difficult to shoot, with less ammo that as a practical matter does not increase the range of lethality of his squad. In short you are making a change to address the 5% which doesn’t work at the expense of the 95%

Nothing to do with accuracy. It has to do with a powerful cartridge. 7.62x51mm has a lot more one shot stops than the 5.56x45mm. The more powerful cartridge will give more range and more power when it gets there to do the job. Be it kill or incapacitate the enemy.

Edit:
I'll add this.
If the average grunt isn't able to make shots out to 500 meters without problems with a 4x scope they are not getting the proper training.

 

[STAGE 2]

Nothing to do with accuracy. It has to do with a powerful cartridge. 7.62x51mm has a lot more one shot stops than the 5.56x45mm. The more powerful cartridge will give more range and more power when it gets there to do the job. Be it kill or incapacitate the enemy.

It does if your objective is to hit the target. There’s no argument on the ballistic difference between 556 and 762. But that difference doesn’t matter if the additional recoil prevents you from hitting the target.

Practical combat effectiveness is the only thing that matters and we learned long ago that average shooters are more effective with intermediate rounds than full bore rifle cartridges.

 

[Ark]

I’d wager that people who are having problems engaging targets with the m4 and ACOG at this distance will have just as much of a problem with this platform.

This issue has been looked at a lot since our involvement in the Stan, and even there only 50% of engagements were past 300 meters. Iraq was nearly exclusively 50m or less.

The real issue, as in most cases is the Indian and not the arrow. The quote below addresses this proposition that the 556 should be replaced…


“I brought the paper up this morning during a roundtable discussion at the Pentagon with the folks from Program Executive Office – Soldier. Col. Doug Tamilio, program manager for Soldier weapons lethality (this guys weapons knowledge is unreal), said it was a very good paper, although he thought some of the conclusions were a bit out of context. Tamilio has made it mandatory reading for his shop, particularly after spending a few days down at SOCOM and hearing the splash the paper has made there.

“He’s right, the fight in Afghanistan is longer… But you’ve got to go back to where soldiers are today. Can a soldier engage beyond 300 meters accurately? The answer is probably not.” Most soldiers coming out of basic training can’t shoot expertly, except for the few sharpshooters. “It takes a while to become an expert at shooting at ranges beyond 300 meters,” he said.”

So all you are doing is giving the average grunt a weapon that is more difficult to shoot, with less ammo that as a practical matter does not increase the range of lethality of his squad. In short you are making a change to address the 5% which doesn’t work at the expense of the 95%

Last paragraph pretty much nails it. Is there a term for this effect where panic over a 5% edge case makes an organization undergo massive changes that dismantle the 95% of cases it was handling well?

 

[STAGE 2]

Edit:
I'll add this.
If the average grunt isn't able to make shots out to 500 meters without problems with a 4x scope they are not getting the proper training.

Everyone could always use more training, but if we’re honest there’s never been any military in the world where an average grunt could effectively engage targets at 500m.

As has been stated earlier, combat accuracy has increased with the move away from full power rifle rounds to intermediate rifle rounds. The issues in Afghanistan were largely a result of our forces being engaged by mortar and mg fire from elevated positions. That’s not really a hardware issue so much as a home field advantage.

Since it’s highly unlikely that we will be involve in similar terrain, and much more likely that our engagements will continue to be at the 50-100 or less range, this looks like our government just having an excuse to spend money.

 

[DadSmith]

Everyone could always use more training, but if we’re honest there’s never been any military in the world where an average grunt could effectively engage targets at 500m.

As has been stated earlier, combat accuracy has increased with the move away from full power rifle rounds to intermediate rifle rounds. The issues in Afghanistan were largely a result of our forces being engaged by mortar and mg fire from elevated positions. That’s not really a hardware issue so much as a home field advantage.

Since it’s highly unlikely that we will be involve in similar terrain, and much more likely that our engagements will continue to be at the 50-100 or less range, this looks like our government just having an excuse to spend money.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria all require high power rifle round that can reach out and have the power to kill or incapacitate the enemy. 101st Airborne understood that and issued the M14.

Above you try to make the argument that the new cartridge won't be as accurate as the 5.56x45mm, or insinuate it. That isn't the case. Also shooting 500 meters with a round made for 400 or less isn't ideal. So until we start shooting a real cartridge again we will never know the potential of our grunts.
We need to get back to a real high power cartridge able to reach out and put down the enemy be it 3 meters or 500+ meters. I also think a 1-8x scope needs issued with the new rifles. More training how to shoot instead of how to treat a pregnant male in the shower with you.

 

[STAGE 2]

Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria all require high power rifle round that can reach out and have the power to kill or incapacitate the enemy. 101st Airborne understood that and issued the M14.

Except as pointed out above the M14 was an unmitigated failure. Again, we are talking about an average grunt, not a designated marksman. The average grunt is going to be better served by a lighter recoiling weapon and extra ammo that can provide fire superiority.

Above you try to make the argument that the new cartridge won't be as accurate as the 5.56x45mm, or insinuate it. That isn't the case. Also shooting 500 meters with a round made for 400 or less isn't ideal. So until we start shooting a real cartridge again we will never know the potential of our grunts.
We need to get back to a real high power cartridge able to reach out and put down the enemy be it 3 meters or 500+ meters. I also think a 1-8x scope needs issued with the new rifles. More training how to shoot instead of how to treat a pregnant male in the shower with you.

The new cartridge won’t be as accurate because the average grunt won’t shoot it accurately. That’s the point.

It’s like the difference between an Indy car and a camry. The Indy car is clearly faster but your average person wouldn’t be able to control it so the camry is the better race car for them. It doesn’t matter how Mario Andretti would drive it because he isn’t the average driver… or grunt.

 

[DadSmith]

Except as pointed out above the M14 was an unmitigated failure. Again, we are talking about an average grunt, not a designated marksman. The average grunt is going to be better served by a lighter recoiling weapon and extra ammo that can provide fire superiority.




The new cartridge won’t be as accurate because the average grunt won’t shoot it accurately. That’s the point.

It’s like the difference between an Indy car and a camry. The Indy car is clearly faster but your average person wouldn’t be able to control it so the camry is the better race car for them. It doesn’t matter how Mario Andretti would drive it because he isn’t the average driver… or grunt.

So you don't think giving them a better cartridge and a better scope wouldn't improve accuracy even to 500 meters or beyond? That would be the fault of those responsible for training them.

 

[88E30M50]

Maybe the answer would be to issue the proper weapon and the train for whatever environment the unit is being sent to. We need to adapt to the environment that we will fight in.

How many of us own a single rifle that gets used in every competition or event? Why can't the Army add a long range capability to be used in a theater that requires it while retaining the mid range capability for other theaters? The failure here is the mindset of having to choose.

 

[DadSmith]

Maybe the answer would be to issue the proper weapon and the train for whatever environment the unit is being sent to. We need to adapt to the environment that we will fight in.

How many of us own a single rifle that gets used in every competition or event? Why can't the Army add a long range capability to be used in a theater that requires it while retaining the mid range capability for other theaters? The failure here is the mindset of having to choose.

That I can agree with. M4 would be a far better system in urban area's. Where this new system will definitely be better in desert, plain, and mountain area's.

 

[STAGE 2]

So you don't think giving them a better cartridge and a better scope wouldn't improve accuracy even to 500 meters or beyond? That would be the fault of those responsible for training them.

If nothing changes with the training, then no. It would be great if every combat soldier was was a seal/ranger/marsoc but they aren’t. Not even close. So that’s a reality we have to deal with. Your standard military unit will be able to put more hits on target with the M4 than this new rifle.

Even if we were able to magically change the training to the level it would need to be at (which we can't because of time and funding constraints) I dont know that we would have a net positive to overcome the fact that a large portion of military members just aren't shooters so there is a level that can't be exceeded.

Again, I have not see anything that suggests that the 556/M4 is not getting the job done. Again, Afghanistan was a singular problem and I dont believe it was a hardware issue. If you are ambushed from an elevated position with mortars and automatic weapons your problem isn't the caliber of your carbine, and your solution is close air support.

 

[blue2golf]

I agree with the focus on training. Question is...will the Army dedicate time and money to accomplish this transition and train soldiers to match the capability of the new rifle? (My experience is from the early 90s and completely outdated for today but back then my answer would be NO. We never got the ammo or range time to adequately qualify with our small arms. "Budget restraints.")

 

[Cozy439]

Maybe the answer would be to issue the proper weapon and the train for whatever environment the unit is being sent to. We need to adapt to the environment that we will fight in.

How many of us own a single rifle that gets used in every competition or event? Why can't the Army add a long range capability to be used in a theater that requires it while retaining the mid range capability for other theaters? The failure here is the mindset of having to choose.

This!!

For any answer, you must define the question. How you define the question SHOULD determine the best answer. I have an Indiana deer rifle and an Indiana deer shotgun. I also have a deer rifle for out west. I am no ballistics or arms expert. I have read many good points but with out ID'ing the question you want the answer too, you will never get a valid answer. I know logistically there can not be unlimited weapons and calibers, but maybe there should be a couple. And for god sakes yes, Warriors need to train for war, not social justice.

 

[Route 45]

My grandfather would disagree. He would say nothing beats a M1 Garand 30-06. Of course that was the greatest generation of American War fighters. They are just naturally tougher.

They had to be, since their rifles "pinged" their location to the enemy every 8 rounds.