M16, M4, HK416 et al................

[buglerbilly]

Bravo Company Gunfighter Charging Handle

January 13th, 2010 | Posted by Stickman

Bravo Company MFG (BCM) has released its new “Gunfighter” Charging Handle (CH) for the M16/ M4/ AR15 platform. After spending the past six weeks with it, thousands of round down range, dry fire drills, and teaching a carbine course with it, we’ve found a few things we like.





Bravo Company MFG President Paul Buffoni set out to develop a fix for a weak link in the M16 family, and that weak link is a tiny roll pin that you use every time you charge your weapon.

Modern training doctrine has most of us working the charging handle with our support hand while the primary hand stays on the pistol grip of the weapon. Initially, the weapon was designed for the shooter to grasp the charging handle with their firing hand, and to pull directly to the rear. This straight back method reduced the stress on the charging handle roll pin, but takes us out of a firing position.

Most troops (MIL or LEO) are using the flat of their support hand, or side of their index finger off their support hand to pull back on the charging handle while pushing forward with their firing hand on the pistol grip. This creates a very positive action for loading or clearing malfunction clearances. The down side is increased wear on the charging handle, with most of the charging handle roll pin taking the brunt of the abuse.

Bravo Company MFG teamed up with Vltor Weapon Systems to develop and manufacturer a unit that would create a stronger charging handle which would take the stress off the roll pin and redistribute it throughout the latch and body. Secondly, the latch was designed to keep the force inside the latch to prevent lateral pressure on the charging handle and receiver, resulting in smoother overall operation.

It sounds good in concept, but when it came to execution, Vltor went above and beyond with their typical attention to detail. The Bravo Company MFG “Gunfighter” Charging Handle is CNC machined from 7075 T6 billet aluminum, and hard coat anodized per Mil-A-8625F, Type III, Class 2. It looks like a piece of combat art when compared to its cheaper siblings.

I recently taught a 3 day carbine course, in which the other instructor and myself were using the BCM Gunfighter. Typical Pacific NorthWest weather prevailed, it was in the 40s, and raining most of the time. While higher quality, and increased strength are the main selling points, I found the wider latch with its aggressive texture to immediately noticeable. Even with cold, wet, numb fingers, I had no problem manipulating the charging handle. My training weapon was used by most of the students at one time or another during the training evolution, and was appreciated by all. At the end of the course there was no sign of wear on the ejection port side of the BCM Gunfighter as one would expect from a standard charging handle that had been used and abused, including being mortared several times while using spent casings for malfunction drills, several thousand rounds of live fire, and loads of dry fire drills.

The BCM Gunfighter is available in two sizes. The GFH-MOD3 is the large latch for scoped applications, and the GFH-MOD4 is the standard size that I’ve been working with.

In the below pictures you can see close ups of the BCM Gunfighter. What can’t be shown is the solid feel in your hand. With a street price of $44.95, this is a piece of equipment which has found its way onto my duty carbine, and onto my list of recommended equipment.

Take a look at www.bravocompanymfg.com for more intel as well as ordering information.

[buglerbilly]

Troy gets a grip

February 17th, 2010 | Product Announcement | Posted by Stickman

Troy Industries has come up with a new concept in grips for the AR15/M16 family of weapons, the Troy Battle Ax CQB Grip. While most others seem to be concentrating on larger grips, Troy went the opposite direction. While talking at SHOT, Steve Troy said the idea behind the smaller grip was to create a method of enabling a higher hand hold and getting the trigger finger better positioned. This polymer grip is textured and fits the M4/AR15/M16 and FN SCAR weapon platforms. The price on the grip is $19.95.

[buglerbilly]

S.T.A.B – Spike’s Tactical Adjustable Break

March 16th, 2010 | Photo Recon Product Preview | Posted by Stickman

Spike’s Tactical has released a muzzle device with an interesting twist.

The S.T.A.B. (Spike’s Tactical Muzzle Break) is designed to direct the muzzle blast forward on short barreled carbines.

The idea of firing a short barreled weapon indoors or from inside vehicles can be painful, with a muzzle device that directs the blast forward, your team mates will thank you, and so will your eardrums. One of the drawbacks to shorter barrels is that they often can be more finicky with ammunition. The S.T.A.B. creates back pressure to aid in reliability. What makes this device stand out from others is the ability to adjust the interior cone position, which creates more or less back pressure, and can adjust your rate of fire. Spike’s Tactical CEO, Tom Miller says that every 16 clicks increases or decreases the rate of fire by 14 RPM. With a feature like this, you should be able to dial in whatever ammo you happen to favor.



From Spike’s Tactical:

The Spike’s Tactical Adjustable Break is an Adjustable muzzle break designed to be used in a short barrel CQB application. It directs the blast down range! The most common problem with short barrels is the lack of back pressure they need to cycle. You can adjust the back pressure up or down until you find that “sweet spot” your 7″-10″ upper needs to cycle properly.

•Machined from 303 stainless steel while the cone of the The S.T.A.B is machined from an ULTRA high temp proprietary alloy
•Adjustable by hand with no tools
•Can be broken down for cleaning with no tools
•Spring loaded collar on the The S.T.A.B is wavy to achieve firm adjustment clicks
•In testing every 16 clicks decreased the rate of fire by 14 RPM.
•We have put thousands and thousands of rounds through the S.T.A.B. and have yet been able to burn one up!
•Coated inside and out (except for the cone) with Melonite for corrosion resistance and durability
•Size – OD is 1.37
•OAL is 3.14
•Weight is 10 Oz. or 284 Grams
•Made in the USA

[buglerbilly]

Army Secretary Sees New Carbine to Replace M4

March 31, 2010|Christian Lowe



Kit Up spoke with Army Secretary John McHugh this morning at a round table interview with top defense scribes in DC.
I pinged him on the glacial pace of the improved carbine program (the replacement or redesign of the M4) and he seemed to indicate that while he sees the program as proceeding apace -- given the requirements and bureaucratic hurdles with such a massive change -- the end result will be a "replacement" of the M4, not just a revamped version, say, with a gas piston operating system or tweaked components.

We have a two part plan to over time replace the M4 with the next variant, whatever that may be. ... We are working the requirements for a [request for proposals] for an eventual replacement of the M4 and a new generation of personal carbine.

Now, you'll remember that my friend Matt Cox over at Army Times got his hands on a briefing slide circulated by PEO Soldier Brig. Gen. Pete Fuller on the Hill showing the near-term improvements the service planned to make to the M4, including a heavier barrel, improved trigger pull, a gas piston system and ambidextrous controls.

A lot of gun watchers think this is a straw man that the Army will erect to impede the fielding of a real replacement for the M4 -- that there's a large institutional pull in the service to wait until that "leap ahead" technology presents itself for a full-on replacement of the standard-issue carbine. I did sense some frustration with PM-level officials that this requirements process was getting bogged down (particularly on the subcompact weapon) and that some folks were impeding the process.

Not so, says McHugh:


It is our intent to field a new personal carbine and to do regular order. I am not at the point right now to suggest that we are not moving in a timely manner.

But McHugh did spin the familiar Army line of "I haven't heard any Soldiers criticizing the M4" -- which one must have to take with a grain of salt, particularly when speaking to troops in Afghanistan. Of the Joes I've spoken to on this issue, the "hate the M4" crowd outnumbers the "It's fine" crowd 3-to-1.

But, at the end of the day, it's clear the McHugh sees a whole new weapon coming down the pike...SCAR?...He doesn't say:


We feel it's a good weapon, we understand that time moves on and we want to upgrade and develop a new one and that's going forward, from my perspective, in due course.

[buglerbilly]

Battle of the Battle Rifle Grips: Grauer IGRS

by christian on April 28, 2010 ·







When Ward and I attended the ITI tactical shooting course a few weeks ago, instructor Brandon Wright, taught us a new way to grip the rifle with our support hand by canting our wrists and throwing the thumb over the barrel. That’s great when you’re using a forward grip like the Magpul Angled Fore Grip, but as we reported in March, some people like to use (and teach) the “horizontal hold” using the magazine well with grip support. EMA Tactical developed a couple solutions to this technique, and we just ran across another innovative look at how to better stabilize your battle rifle using the magwell for a grip.

The Grauer Integrated Grip Rail System takes the EMA product a step further by basically taking over the magwell entirely. The beefy grip is designed to:

“make it easier to maneuver and control the weapon when holding with just the non-shooting hand … [and] also further enhances the traditional ‘horizontal hold’ by providing a more ergonomic way to apply rearward pressure for better weapon control.

So, whether shooting while standing, prone, over a barrier or around a doorway, whether maneuvering through tight spaces or on patrol, the IGRS is the ultimate weapon enhancement platform for the warfighter.

The other thing the new IGRS has it a so-called “flared magazine funnel” which aids in quicker reloads. The grip also has “internal wire routing” that allows the operator to integrate light and laser optic switches directly into the grip.



It’s a big piece of gear (Grauer recommends a trained dealer install it for you) and at $499, it’s also pretty Gucci on price. But with the battle over battle rifle grips taking shape, solutions like this are surely going to vy for the vert grip supremacy.

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/2010/04/battle-of-the-battle-rifle-grips-grauer-igrs.html#ixzz0nMZ7bVwB

[buglerbilly]

Get Your Paint Out! Army Issues Guidance for Rifle Camo

by christian on May 16, 2010



After almost nine years of constant combat in environments from the urban warrens of Baghdad to the lush river valleys of Afghanistan, the Army has issued official guidance on how Soldiers in regular line units can use paint to camouflage their weapons, joining special operations forces who have been camouflaging their weapons for years.

With all the back and forth over whether the universal camouflage pattern, MultiCam or UCP-Delta uniforms and gear were best for the varied terrain of Afghanistan, many experts cited the solid black battle rifle as one of the deadest giveaways when trying to remain hidden from enemy eyes.

Kit Up! obtained an primer in how to camo your weapon, but the Army has one big caveat:

“Before painting your weapon it is important to keep several things in mind. First and foremost is to ensure that you have proper authorization from your superior to paint your weapon…[and] have a plan for how you want your camouflage to look. Painting a weapon is not about personalization but increasing its tactical capabilities without impairing its ability to function.”

The Army also says you’re going to have to strip that paint – they give official GSA stock numbers for the type of spray paint to use – before you turn it back into the armory at the end of your deployment.

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz0o9byzrT8

[Raven22]

There's a picture of a few painted F88s and M4s in the latest Army rag that use a new waterbased paint. I'm not one for technology, so I can't post the photo, but you can see it on the defence website.

[Gubler, A.]

There's a picture of a few painted F88s and M4s in the latest Army rag that use a new waterbased paint. I'm not one for technology, so I can't post the photo, but you can see it on the defence website.

The print screen button on your keyboard will capture just about everything you see on your screen from time to time:



But with the new tan F88s the camo might not be so needed. They blend a lot better than the old green and black. Though a few rabbit ears in brown and green might help disrupt them some more.



They even tanned the bit of the barrel that goes inside the receiver!



Just a shame about those non camouflaged helmets and DMO not being able to organise a cover. Its not as if the head isn't the most important part of a soldier needing disruption or that UV light will destroy the strength of the outer layer of Kevlar. But then again the US Army just recalled all their Rabintex helmets so we might have bigger problems on our hands - or heads - we just don't know about it yet...

[Raven22]

Thales isn't making tan F89s, SR-98s, NFE etc, so the paint is still handy. The tan colour isn't the be all and end all anyway - its sticks out like dogs balls in the jungle.


Just a shame about those non camouflaged helmets and DMO not being able to organise a cover.

The covers are a pain in the ass anyway - they get caught on everything. I just paint my helmet and damn the RSM if he doesn't like it.

[Gubler, A.]

The covers are a pain in the ass anyway - they get caught on everything. I just paint my helmet and damn the RSM if he doesn't like it.

The helmets should be painted with a UV resistant coating - in disruption pattern of course - before they get issued. UV degradation of Kevlar is a serious issue, especially in high near UV light regions like Australia and the MEAO.

[Raven22]

Lucky we don't issue kevlar helmets except for operations and displays then...

[Gubler, A.]

Lucky we don't issue kevlar helmets except for operations and displays then...

They don't get in the sun then? With 1-2 months of wear during the day in a mild UV environment (north east America) the outer layer will lose up to 60% of its strength. In high UV sunlight that rate of degradation can increase by 4-16 times. All it takes is a cover or a coating to stop the UV and this isn't a problem.

[buglerbilly]

BCM 14.5″ Midlength Upper Receiver Group w/ Permanent Flash Hider

May 17th, 2010 | Photo Recon Product Announcement Review | Posted by Stickman



Bravo Company MFG (BCM) is well known in the weapon community for their solid weapon components, and we recently had a chance to grab one of their newest 14.5″ barreled upper receiver groups. Below are a list of the specs, and a pictorial guide to illustrate them.

Why are these specs important? Guys are carrying these into harms way overseas, and throughout the US in patrol cars. Right now, I’m one of them.

How well do I think the BCM uppers hold up? I’ve run a few thousand rounds through it (roughly 2,800 not counting what other guys have fired using this upper), and it has been flawless. In general, I don’t consider an M4/ AR15 upper worth looking at it if I can’t run a thousand rounds through it without malfunction. Reliability of a weapon is always my number one concern when I carry a weapon into harms way, and I’ll bet its yours as well. Its probably worth mentioning that all firing that I have done with this weapon has been using Magpul PMAGs. Some of the other guys using it had some older USGI mags, but for the most part, everyone I know is using PMAGs now. Its a moot point as far as I’m concerned as even the old beater aluminum mags had no feed issues. Ammunition fired was a mix of Q3131 (55 grain fmj), M855, M856, and a bit of M196. Some of the older ammo was dented up, but it still had no problems feeding, firing or extracting.

The hardest part of this review isn’t shooting the pictures, pointing out the specs, or talking about the reliability of the weapon. The hardest part is talking about the feel of the weapon when running shooting drills. This is by far the smoothest shooting AR15/ M4 that I have ever fired. With a few decades of weapons work, LE and MIL experience, combined with being a firearms instructor, and armorer, I don’t make that comment lightly. I attribute this to a few particular things. Starting with the muzzle device, BCM has chosen to use the Primary Weapon Systems FSC556, which is both a flash suppressor and compensator. While the PWS FSC556 kills flash a little less (to my eye) than a standard A2 flash suppressor like the ones on most M4s, it does a very good job on recoil reduction and muzzle rise. The side blast found on many compensators is diminished, and through the use of curved ports, pressure is directed upwards. The next piece of the puzzle is the midlength gas system. Unlike the gas system on the M4, the midlength gas system picks up an extra 2 inches of length. This decreases peak pressure, slows gas port erosion, and gives a longer sight radius when using irons. If you have ever fired a M16 (A1/A2/A4) and then fired a carbine, you probably felt a difference, with the rifle being smoother. The midlength splits the difference between the two. The last piece is the use of a heavy buffer in my carbine. The sum of the parts is greater than the individual pieces in this case. It truly is a fantastic shooting weapon. This sentiment is not solely my own, but has been repeated over and over as friends, Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, Police and instructors have taken it out to put a few mags through her. My favorite comment was from a Ranger who did hammers from the 50 yardline without ever losing a sight picture. With a big smile on his face he yelled “Holy S%%* thats nice”. Yeah, I’ve got to agree.

Below are a list of component features, many taken from the Bravo Company MFG website. BCM takes great pride in the items they manufacture, and it starts with the materials used. The Military has taken a lot of time, testing, and experience in developing the current issue weapons. To replicate Military Specification takes quite a bit of effort, and its neither cheap nor the easy way of doing things, but it creates components that last under harsh use.

The M16 Bolt Carrier Group is setup as shown below.

•Milspec Carpenter No. 158® steel
•Chrome Lined Carrier (AUTO)



•Milspec Carpenter No. 158® steel
•HPT Bolt (High Pressure Tested/ Proof)
•MPI Bolt (Magnetic Particle Inspected)
•Shot Peened Bolt
•Key Staked Per Mil-Spec
•Tool Steel Extractor
•BCM Extractor Spring
•Black Extractor Insert
•Mil-Spec Crane O-Ring



•Chrome Lined Gas Key
•Gas Key Hardened to USGI Specifications
•Grade 8 Hardened Fasteners
•Key Staked Per Mil-Spec



You can see the PWS FSC556 has been pinned and welded into place in the below image. This is done to keep the 14.5″ barrel a legal overall of 16″, which is what the law requires for civilian weapons. The weld has been left obvious in case there are any questions when you are out at the range and you run into a range staff member who is a little curious.

Military specifications require that barrels undergo a High Pressure Test, which is more commonly known as “proof firing”. The BCM barrels are fired using the M197 proof load, which is overpressured and rated at 70,000 psi. The BCM barrels are then Magnetic Particle Inspected to check for any flaws. Any detection of abnormality means the barrel is pulled. BCM states their barrels are Magnetic Particle Inspected “with both circular and longitudinal magnetic fields per ASTME1444-01 (current Mil-Spec) to assure a high quality finished product”. BCM barrels are marked to show this is done, and in the case of this barrel, it is done under the rail.

The USGI 1/7 twist rate of all of the BCM barrels is perfect for the longer and heavier 77 grain ammunition being used by some. This faster barrel twist works fine with the generic and cheaper 55 grain ammunition as well. Being chambered in 5.56, you are able to shoot 5.56 or .223 ammunition without any trouble. BCM uses barrel steel which is Mil-Spec per MIL-B-11595E. This grade is higher quality than many of the barrels that are found on the market. Stronger steel lends itself to a longer life.

“F” marked Front Sight Bases are standard on BCM barrels, which is a welcome change from some other manufacturers who use the M16A2 FSB. This can result in problems trying to zero the weapon. BCM has it done right. You may also notice the taper pins instead of roll pins. These are firmly installed, and do not protrude unduly. There is a Milspec for taper pins, and BCM is using the right ones here. While that may seem like a small thing, it makes a difference if you ever need to pop the pins. The cheaper versions have a habit of mushrooming. The sling swivel is coated, and held in place with a tubular rivet. The gas tube roll pin is perfectly centered, and there is no deformation.
Barrels are finished with a manganese phosphate finish (Mil-Spec A-A-59267). The barrel is phosphate coated before the FSB is installed, meaning that there is no bare metal, not even under the FSB where you wouldn’t see it.



The Daniel Defense 9.0 LITE rail is installed on this upper, and creates a rock solid upper receiver platform that won’t wobble, and doesn’t leave a gap between the upper receiver and upper rail. The Daniel Defense LITE rail is based on the SOCOM RIS II rail. The notable difference is that the LITE rail is a one piece rail, unlike its RIS II counterpart which has a removable rail so the M203 can be mounted. While you can use a grenade launcher with the LITE rail, you will have to go with a rail mounted version. Other features of the DD LITE rail include that it is machined from Aircraft grade 6061 T-6 aluminum, and hard coat anodized to Milspec Type III. The rail is also welded to its core, instead of being fixed in place through the use of chemical adhesives as some other companies do. Heat and solvents won’t affect welds, so throwing a weapon in the dunk tank after getting it hot and dirty won’t be a problem.



Checking the inside of the upper receiver reveals a gas tube that is in perfect alignment. After several thousand rounds, there is no sign of wear on the gas tube or carrier key.



The M4 feedramps are well machined into the upper receiver, and blend smoothly with the feedramps on the barrel extension. In using my careful fingernail test, I noted no protrusions or gaps. Since the upper has never had a failure to feed, I’ll say these are as good as it gets. M4 feedramps were an upgrade which enhanced reliability under full auto firing with the M4. While this may or may not be of concern for you, its better to have than have not. Personally speaking, I wouldn’t buy a carbine that didn’t have M4 feedramps, there just isn’t a down side to them.

It may be difficult to tell in this picture, but the barrel and chamber are chrome lined for durability and ease of cleaning. While chrome lining is said to give slightly higher velocity, the longer barrel life and peace of mind it brings is more important to me.



BCM flat top uppers feature T-marks that are laser engraved, which provides ready reference points when removing and replacing equipment. I’ve heard people comment that this isn’t needed, but for shooters who are setting up multiple weapons, or for guys who switch equipment back and forth, it makes sense. Shown below is the BCM rear folding sight, which is a nice option. Manufactured by Troy Industries for Bravo Company MFG, these are one of the most popular Back Up Iron Sights on the market.



Here is the BCM 14.5″ Midlength upper receiver broken down into its main parts. I know that looks, fit and finish are important to some people, and this upper doesn’t disappoint in those areas. The finish on the aluminum is deep, dark, and black. There are no dents in the aluminum, and all parts are correctly assembled without marking or scratching anything. The barrel and steel parts are free of scratches, and the parkerizing is even and of good color. All screws were checked for tightness, and were found to be in good order.

If you noticed the charging handle looking a little different, you noticed right. The BCM “GUNFIGHTER” Charging Handle is something we talked about a few months back. This Charging Handle (CH) isn’t a simply another tactical latch thrown on the market. Its a redesigned piece that removes the pressure from the roll pin, which becomes important if you use your off hand to slap the CH and chamber rounds. Instead of rehashing the entire article, check out the link and see why I use one on my duty weapons, as do many of my friends.

http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/2010/01/13/bravo-company-gunfighter-charging-handle/#more-3907



People are finding BCM to be the best weapon company that they haven’t heard of. To put it simply, these are AR15/ M4 uppers you can rely on.

The 14.5″ midlength Bravo Company MFG upper is worth a good look. We’ll be checking out some of the other BCM offerings in the near future, until then, here are some links for additional info.

http://www.bravocompanymfg.com/

http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BCM-URG-MID-14+DDL9&Show=ExtInfo

[ARH v.3.1]

There's a picture of a few painted F88s and M4s in the latest Army rag that use a new waterbased paint. I'm not one for technology, so I can't post the photo, but you can see it on the defence website.

I'm waiting for the day someone gets to explain how they managed to paint over the lens of the scope by accident...

[Raven22]

They're probably the same person who puts the sight on backwards anyway.

I actually had a record last year when one of my recruit managed to put both his sight and his NAD on backwards. It always scared me when we gave these people live ammunition. As a civilian they wouldn't be trusted with a pair of scissors.

[Deks]

that's a pretty good effort raven, hope he/she was buying the beers after that one!

[buglerbilly]

Rainier Arms XTC – Xtreme Tactical Compensator

May 24th, 2010 | Photo Recon Product Announcement Review | Posted by Stickman

Rainier Arms has their new Xtreme Tactical Compensator (XTC) hitting shelves as we speak. I first spoke with John Hwang, owner of Rainier Arms, over a year and a half ago while they were in the R&D stages, and I’ve had the opportunity to shoot with these as they have gone through a few minor changes. Click the below image to find out why this things works so well, and what its good for.



The concept of a compensator or muzzle brake is well understood by anyone who has fired a weapon that has a high amount of felt recoil. Often over looked however are the lower recoiling weapon systems like the M4 and AR15s, with some less informed people saying you need to hit the gym harder if you can’t shoot with 5.56. Rounds on target count, and the more the weapon recoils, and the higher the barrel raises, the longer you are off target, which slows down your follow up shots. Any of us can “handle” the recoil of a M4 or AR15, but the smart ones prefer to use the weapon system as effectively as possible. Good stance and grip on the weapon are aids in shooting, but without question, compensators reduce felt recoil and muzzle rise.

So whats the catch and why aren’t we all shooting with comps? Compensators tend to have a very large muzzle flash, and are much louder due to their nature of redirecting the blast to control recoil. Rainier Arms jumped into the XTC design knowing that there were plenty of compensators on the market, but wanted to have an item which truly had a more “tactical” approach to things. To gather the most flash suppression, they went with an open ended four prong design. The four channels break up and reduce the muzzle flash, and when compared to a standard compensator or muzzle brake, the results are impressive. Will this beat out a dedicated flash suppressor in terms of flash reduction, no. What it will do is beat out dedicated compensators in flash suppression, and will reduce muzzle rise substantially, which translates into more rounds on target in less time. This piece will also extend a 14.5″ barrel into a legal 16″ if pinned and welded or silver soldered per BATF spec.

The Rainier Arms XTC flat out works, and Rainier Arms offers Military and Law Enforcement discounts. Check them out, let them know Military Times sent you.

http://www.rainierarms.com/?page=shop/detail&product_id=1684

Check out the 28 second youtube video from Nickdrak below to see the XTC getting put through its paces. Nicks comment at the end sums it up nicely.

[buglerbilly]

Related to the above, a special offer for readers...........


*** UPDATED WITH SPECIAL PRICE FOR MILITARY TIMES VIEWERS ***

Use coupon code GEARSCOUT in all CAPs and the Military Times viewer price will be $49.95 instead of the $79.95 normal price. The length of time this deal runs is based off amount sold and current inventory, so there is no expiration date listed. I’ll update this when its over.

[buglerbilly]

M4 Grip Pod Popular in the Field

by christian on June 2, 2010



Got a note yesterday from a reader who was wondering what the latest impressions were of the Grip Pod Systems-made M4 Grip Pod – you know, that forward vertical grip that hides a retractable bipod in its internals.

http://www.grippod.com/index.html

I will say that it was by far the most popular accessory of its category in the field that I saw. Soldiers generally liked the system and used it not just for a comfortable and stable rest for shooting, but also for keeping their weapon at the ready when not in their hands. It essentially acts as an efficient rest for the weapon when it’s not being used.

Now, the only problem I see with the system comes from the critiques of hard core competitive shooters — whose techniques are infiltrating themselves into the training of regular military units — that are preaching the gospel of the Magpul Angled ForeGrip system and the thumb-over-the-barrel grip. But it seems to me that’s still a bit on the boutiquey side of things and the vertical fore grip is here to stay.

We’d be interested to see what our readers think of the Grip Pod…

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz0pkPOpc2b

[Raven22]

We were using grip pods on Para-Minimis instead of the crappy harris bipod a couple of years ago. There were pretty good pieces of kit. Cheap as chips at the PX too.

[buglerbilly]

Turning the M-16A4 into the M-16A5

by christian on June 24, 2010



A Kit Up! reader forwarded me some great info on a few things that gun accessory makers are doing to improve current M4s and M16s.

One of these is the EMod A5 combo kit manufactured by VLTOR. Basically the company is marketing the kit to the Marine Corps as a way to upgrade their inventory of M-16A4s. The company says that if the Corps adopts the kit — which they say the USMC is looking at — the rifle would thence be called the M-16A5.

http://www.vltor.com/emod-a5.html



The EMod A5 Combo Kit contains the following items:

Qty 1, EMod stock kit, with storage compartments.
Qty 1, A5 Seven-Position Receiver Extension, Part# V2-1165-C1
Qty 1, A5 Mid-length Buffer (standard weight), Part# V2-1165-A1
Qty 1, M16A2/A5 Action Spring, Part# V2-1165-C102
Qty 1, Receiver End Lock Plate, Part# V2-1069-M1
Qty 1, Receiver End Lock Nut, Part# V2-1069-M2


A lot of the improvements to performance go over my head, but VLTOR says the improved combo kit delivers better reliability on both M16s and M4s.


The patent pending Vltor A5 configuration stock kit is not just an EMod stock with M4 components; it’s developed as a completely new operating system. For example, the receiver extension is longer, housing a longer and specially weighted buffer, utilizing the M16A2 action spring. The A5 receiver extension features seven adjustment positions. When totally collapsed, the EMod is at the same length if mounted to any carbine length (M4) receiver extension. When totally extended (in the seventh position), the EMod can extend to a longer length of pull than an M16A2 stock assembly.

Recently tested by a professional source, the A5 system has proven to be more reliable then the M16A2, M4 and the recently released “H6” stock systems. With the use of the M16A2 action spring, the A5 system resembles the reliability and performance of the M16 fixed stock system. By having the same characteristics of the M16 fixed stock system, the A5 has shown increased accuracy and milder/smoother function, due to the constant spring rate the M16A2 spring offers. To reiterate, the A5 system offers everything the M16 fixed stock system offers, but with increased reliability and performance.

The company also says the EMod A5 system can help your spec ops bubbas and their gas-piston guns.


The A5 system is a superb upgrade for piston systems. Piston equipped ARs, are usually over-gassed and show excessive carrier velocities, which can lead to unreliability and decreased accuracy. As tested on numerous piston systems (such as the HK 416 platform), the A5 system has tamed such platforms and reduced the weapons rate of fire while retaining, if not increasing, the weapons reliability. Also available for the A5 system are two heavier weighted buffers for the weapon or shooter with special needs. Each heavier buffer upgrade is offered separately, but not in “kit” form.

We hope to have more coverage of items like this so that Kit Up! can grow into a more comprehensive resource for tactical professionals and military servicemembers. If you have any suggestions of pieces of kit you particularly find useful, please be sure to use the Kit Up! Tip Line to let us know…we’ll dot your ”i”s and cross your ”t”s and put your review up for the quarter million readers who come here every month.

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz0rp5aEmaD

[buglerbilly]

SOCOM Cancels Mk-16 SCAR

by christian on June 25, 2010



In an exclusive report for Military.com we reveal that US Spec Ops Command has abandoned the 5.56 version of the SCAR and will use FY 2011 money to buy more 7.62 Mk-17s to fill a “capability gap” for a 7.62 battle rifle.

Here’s an excerpt:


In a surprising reversal that follows years of effort to design a one-of-a-kind commando rifle, the U.S. military’s Special Operations Command has abruptly decided to abandon the new SOCOM Combat Assault rifle – the “SCAR,” as the rifle is commonly known – in favor of previously-fielded carbines.

Details provided exclusively to Military.com reveal that SOCOM, the Tampa-based command that oversees the training and equipping of SEALs, Green Berets, Air Force Special Tactics Teams and Marine SOC groups, will stop purchasing the 5.56 mm Mk-16 Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle and might require all units who now have them to turn the new weapons back into the armory.

“The Mk-16 does not provide enough of a performance advantage over the M-4 to justify spending USSOCOM’s limited … funds when competing priorities are taken into consideration,” officials at USSOCOM said in an email response to questions from Military.com. “Currently, three of USSOCOM’s four components receive the 5.56 mm M-4 from their parent service as a service common equipment item.”

A couple things to note here, so far SOCOM has purchased 850 Mk-16s and 750 Mk-17s — way below their original requirement. The weird thing to consider here is that the requirement was for a 5.56 and that was what was competed. Now they’re buying a 7.62 that has no written requirement document attached to it.

Further, the SEALs are going to be particularly in the hurt locker on this one since the Navy doesn’t buy their guns, SOCOM does. I hear that it was Naval Special Warfare that really pushed this program and that it was the USASOC that basically killed it. More of the Mk-16s were fielded to SEALs than any other unit within SOCOM.

Also of note: I hear that the services who have them will have to hand back their Mk-16s when they’re back from deployment and pick up their old SOPMOD M4s or HK-416s. So so a final goodbye to your SCAR-16 when you’re back from The Box.

Two well-informed industry analysts tell me that SCAR-maker FNH-USA will try to sell SOCOM on the idea of a Mk-17 common receiver that can be turned into a 5.56 or other caliber by switching out part of the lower receiver. So FNH-USA is positioning itself to rescue the Mk-16 through the Mk-17. But there’s no indication that SOCOM is biting.

There will certainly be more on this story as it develops, but I wanted Kit Up! readers to be the first to know.

Have a great weekend!

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz0rv0OxAbY

[buglerbilly]

Spec Ops Command Cancels New Rifle

June 25, 2010

Military.com|by Christian Lowe

In a surprising reversal that follows years of effort to design a one-of-a-kind commando rifle, the U.S. military's Special Operations Command has abruptly decided to abandon the new SOCOM Combat Assault rifle – the "SCAR," as the rifle is commonly known – in favor of previously-fielded carbines.

Details provided exclusively to Military.com reveal that SOCOM, the Tampa-based command that oversees the training and equipping of SEALs, Green Berets, Air Force Special Tactics Teams and Marine SOC groups, will stop purchasing the 5.56 mm Mk-16 Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle and might require all units who now have them to turn the new weapons back into the armory.

Read more about the Mk-16 SCAR cancellation in Kit Up! see article above this post...........

"The Mk-16 does not provide enough of a performance advantage over the M-4 to justify spending USSOCOM's limited … funds when competing priorities are taken into consideration," officials at USSOCOM said in an email response to questions from Military.com. "Currently, three of USSOCOM's four components receive the 5.56 mm M-4 from their parent service as a service common equipment item." (Naval Special Warfare Command is the only component that does not purchase its weapons with Navy funds.)

SOCOM said it will instead purchase additional Mk-17 variants that use the heavier 7.62 mm round, more Mk-13 Enhanced Grenade Launchers, and a newly-designated Mk-20 Sniper Support Rifle. (Industry observers say the Mk-20 is basically the Mk-17 with longer barrel and other sharpshooter enhancements.)

News of the cancellation of the Mk-16 variant of the SCAR is a major reversal for a command that spent six years and millions of dollars fielding a rifle specifically made for use by special operators. It was the first rifle since the M-16 that was competed, tested, and built from the ground up for the military.

This cancellation will certainly be poorly received by program advocates who touted the weapon's mission flexibility, better gas piston operating system, and performance in dusty environments as clear advantages over the current M-4.

Elaine Golladay, spokeswoman for FNH-USA, the weapon's manufacturer, declined to comment on the cancellation for this report.

Ironically, the company announced May 4 that it had passed the final hurdle from SOCOM's weapons buying office to go into full production and fielding of both the Mk-16 and Mk-17. It is unclear if SOCOM had made the decision to cancel their buy of the Mk-16 when FNH-USA issued that announcement.

Additionally, sources tell Military.com that SOCOM is leaning toward requiring that all Mk-16s currently fielded be returned as retaining limited numbers of them would complicate training and logistics support.

Officials with SOCOM said the services have so far fielded 850 Mk-16s and 750 Mk-17s throughout the SOF community, but did not specify which units got what rifle. As of last count, Military.com reported Army Rangers, most SEAL teams and Naval Special Warfare Combat-Craft Crewmen had received a mix of Mk-16s and 17s.

Original program documents from SOCOM show a requirement of over 120,000 Mk-16s and nearly 40,000 Mk-17s.

It is unclear how many Mk-17 rifles SOCOM will buy. The command budgeted $3 million in fiscal 2011 to purchase SCAR variants and had an additional "unfunded requirement" of $1.6 million for SCAR.

"The Mk-17 fills the existing capability gap for a 7.62 mm rifle," officials said. "USSOCOM is in the process of determining the exact quantities of the Mk-17, Mk-13 and Mk-20 variants that will be purchased."

© Copyright 2010 Military.com. All rights reserved.

[buglerbilly]

SCAR Mk-16 Death Aftermath

by christian on June 29, 2010



Our story on the official cacellation of the Mk-16 variant of the Socom Combat Assault Rifle rippled across the internet this past weekend and we’re still peeling the onion on this as we get more information about the program and where it stands.

But one thing I’ve been keeping an eye on is the impression of troopers in the war zone who use both the Mk-16 and Mk-17 (as well as the Mk-13 EGLM). On a BTDT board, one trooper who appears to be an Army SOF operator said his Mk-16 is fine, but the Mk-17 and its 7.62×51 ammo is confidence inspiring…


I will say that hands down, having 7.62 rounds (LR) flying out towards the enemy at significant range (600-800m) has been a big advantage. Most of our engagements have been at range.

The writer says that his team has 6 Mk-16s and 6 Mk-17s and that some of the crusty Green Berets refuse to carry the new toy. He said that on one occasion his team “went black” on ammo during an engagement (he’s in Afghanistan).

The SCAR-H works well with the GripPod forward pistol grip with internal bipod and the LCAN (what’s that?)…


I like the capability this weapon system brings to the team. With our SR25s, 240, SCAR-Hs, M-24s, and the sketchy M110s (no more sketchy then the SCAR I suppose), we have a team wide 7.62 capability which is pretty relevant for this AO.

The one interesting thing the writer says is that he was frustrated by the capacity of the SCAR-H magazine at 20 rounds. Now, our friends at Soldier Systems report that Socom is pushing a 25-round magazine for the Mk-17, but we haven’t been able to confirm it…though we agree that more is better.

At the end of the day, as most of us suspected, the Mk-17 with its 7.62 round is wildly popular and we’ll keep a close eye on which direction Socom goes with its buy.


I’ve also heard rumor the we (USASFC) will not receive more SCARs or parts, but this team has definitely enjoyed the 7.62 capability on this trip, regardless of platform. Who ever has the power, we’ve got to get the teams this 7.62 capability (besides belt feds and sniper systems) for this theater.

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz0sFv56gQl

[buglerbilly]

SOCOM Developing Caliber Conversion for SCAR

by christian on June 29, 2010


Mark 16 SCAR-L variants

Officials with the Tampa-based USSOCOM followed up on our Mk-16 cancellation story with some clarifications about some of the data presented in the piece posted on Military.com.

First off, the command took issue with my calling the program “cancelled.” Technically the SCAR program is still on, of course, but SOCOM has decided not to buy any more of the straight up 5.56 versions. OK…In my book that means the Mk-16 is cancelled, but I can see how they’d get some grief from some quarters about the legalistic terms.

Also, to be clear, SOCOM is not buying any additional Mk-17s than it was already planning to buy. If the article gave some folks that impression, that’s an incorrect read of the “buying more” bit. They’re buying more than they have now, and no more of the Mk-16s.

Another point. SOCOM said they are definitely having troopers turn in their Mk-16s when they redeploy and will not allow any Mk-16s in the inventory. What SOCOM is not clear on yet is what will happen to the roughly 850 SCAR-Ls once they’re back at the armory.

Now, there was confusion on the back and forth via email with SOCOM and FNH on this, but the command wanted to make sure we made this point clear. SOCOM will “complete development” of a kit that can convert the Mk-17 into a 5.56 if desired.

The original objective was to develop a single weapon capable of firing whatever caliber desired. That objective is met with the Mk 17 as the development of a conversion kit allows the operator to fire either 7.62mm or 5.56mm ammunition from the Mk 17.

I did get my numbers mixed up on the original acquisition objective. What SOCOM followed up to me was that the JORD showed a requirement for 38,000 Mk-16s and 5,600 Mk-17s.

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/2010/06/socom-developing-caliber-conversion-for-scar.html#comments#ixzz0sITEDe7c

[buglerbilly]

Nice poster that you can buy for a nice cause..............

http://markfingar.com/Product.htm

International Orders
are being taken exclusively at:
www.evotactical.com
__________________________________________________ ______________________________

Size: 24" x 36"
Full-Color (commercially printed on a 4-color press, with an aqueous gloss coating)
Bright White, 100 lb T, Gloss Paper

Arrives rolled, in protective plastic sleeve, in a heavyweight shipping tube
(with foam inserts to protect the ends) ready for framing



10% of the profits from this poster will go to CAUSE



Colt M4
(SOPMOD STYLE) with KAC RAS Handguard & KAC Vertical Grip.

Optics & Iron Sights:
ACOG TA33
ACOG TA31 RCO
ACOG TA11
ACOG TA01 w/ T1COG Aimpoint Micro Mount
EOTech 552
EOTech XPS
EOTech 3X Magnifier
Aimpoint T1 Micro
Aimpoint Comp M2
Aimpoint Comp M4s
Aimpoint 3X Magnifier
Burris XTR 1-4 24
Leupold Prismatic
Leupold CQ/T MK4
Leupold 1.5-5 MK4
Nightforce NXS Riflescope
Colt C-MORE Tactical Sight
A3 Detachable Carry Handle
LaRue Tactical IronDot
Troy BUIS
Matech BUIS
LaRue BUIS
LMT BUIS
Troy Front Sight
PRI Front Sight

Lasers:
PEQ-2A
PEQ-15
PAQ-4C
DBAL-A2
OTAL

Lights:
Surefire L72
Surefire M910
Insight M6
Surefire M95
Surefire M98
Surefire Scout
Surefire Mini Scout

Silencers & DD's:
Knight's Armament M4QD
YHM Phantom, and QD Flash Hider
GemTech M496D
Surefire M4FA556-BK
Ops Inc CQB 15th Model
M203 Grenade Launcher

Night Vision:
PVS-22
PVS-14 & Magnifier
PVS-17
PVS-24
KAC UNS
CNVD-T

Misc Hardware:
LMT SOPMOD Stock
Magpul CTR Stock
Magpul UBR Stock
Colt M4Stock
LaRue Tactical Free-Floating Handguard
LaRue Tactical Vertical Grip
Magpul MIAD Grip
Magpul Magazine Pull
Harris Bipod with LaRue QD mount

...and much more

[buglerbilly]

Corps Set to Field SAW Replacement

July 01, 2010

Military.com|by Matthew Cox



The Marine Corps will field its new, lightweight auto rifle this fall to five combat battalions preparing for war-zone deployments.

Commandant Gen. James T. Conway gave Corps officials the green light in April to issue approximately 450 M27 Infantry Automatic Rifles, enough to replace every M249 squad automatic weapon in four infantry battalions and one light armored reconnaissance battalion.

The limited fielding is a final test to find out if the Heckler & Koch-made weapon performs as well in an operational environment as it has in testing, said Charles Clark III, who oversees infantry weapons requirements at the Corps' Combat Development and Integration office at Quantico, Va.

"The battlefield test will be a verification of what we have already established through extensive operational testing," Clark said. "We want to get a user assessment prior to full-rate production."

Conway's decision comes despite his past concerns about replacing the M249 with a magazine-fed automatic rifle. His main worry is whether the M27's light weight and accuracy will be enough to make up for the loss of suppressive firepower Marine gunners will give up when they go into battle without the belt-fed M249.

Program officials acknowledge that a 30-round magazine cannot produce the high volume of fire the M249 is capable of when loaded with a 200-round belt. The Corps is considering high-capacity magazines that can hold 50 or 100 rounds of 5.56mm ammo, but Marines that deploy with this first batch of IARs will carry only 30-round magazines.

We know Magpul have the 50-round, quad-stack, magazine under development and there's that lovely 150-round dual drum effort from ARMATAC,the SAW-MAG...........plus they are also going to do a quad-stack, 50-round effort............I'd have thought it proper and SAFE to have waited for one of these to be qualified for use with the IAR.........using 30-round mags wouldn't make me a happy bunny!

"The initial limited fielding will not include a high-capacity ammunition source, but that remains an option," Clark said, explaining that such magazines will have to undergo a separate round of testing.

The M27, a variant of the H&K 416, weighs just 7.9 pounds, unloaded. By comparison, the M249 weighs 17 pounds, unloaded.

Marines involved in operational testing at Twentynine Palms, Calif.; Fort McCoy, Wis.; and Camp Shelby, Miss., were "very comfortable with it because it's a lot like a M16A4 and it's far more maneuverable and portable" than the M249, Clark said. "The H&K gun has performed very well throughout operational testing."

Marine officials selected the H&K weapon in October over two prototypes from Colt Defense LLC and one made by FN Herstal. (Colt makes the M4 and FN makes the M249.) The M27 uses a short-stroke gas piston, which proved more reliable than the M16/M4's direct gas system in an Army dust test in late 2007.

The new IAR, which fires from the closed-bolt position, is most effective when employed as a point-target weapon, program officials maintain.

"The accuracy has been a real standout," Clark said. "The IAR has demonstrated to be a far more accurate gun" than the M249, which fires from the open-bolt position.

In the defensive role, the M27 used "far less" ammunition to drop the same number of targets compared to the M249, Clark said.

Program officials maintain that the increased accuracy will compensate for the M27's slower, sustained rate of fire. Unlike the M249, the new IAR doesn't have a spare barrel that can be switched out to prevent overheating. Marine gunners will have to keep their sustained rate of fire at 65 rounds per minute compared to the M249's 85 rounds per minute.

"It has a little bit lower sustained rate of fire, but it's far more accurate," Clark said.

The Corps hopes to begin fielding the M27s in November so Marine units have "four to six months" to train with their new weapons.

"We are not sending these guns straight to Afghanistan," Clark said. "The units that are participating will have the guns long before they go into theater."

[buglerbilly]

Guest Blog: Get a (Better) Grip on Your Carbine

by christian on July 1, 2010



By Sean Fisher –

In a discussion recently about the current issued M16 and M4, amidst the usual issues of maintenance and caliber size, a trooper blew my mind by remarking upon an issue that gets little to no spotlight: The grip.

The pistol grip is an integral part of the M16/m4 weapons system. Proper usage and hold can make or break your shot. Not only is accuracy an issue, but you also have to take into account fatigue and plain old fire control.

The standard A2 pistol grip was originally part of the M16A2 design adopted by the Marines in the mid-80’s and hasn’t changed much since. Thousands of troops have carried the rifle and used this design for years and fought successfully with it.

So why change what works?

Recently the renewed interest in Ar-15s in the civilian market has created an explosion of aftermarket parts for the AR-15/M16/M4 and its variants. A lot of these parts are “Tacticool” and serve no functional purpose other than giving Mall Ninja’s something to drool over. But when you separate the chaff from the wheat you find that the 15 odd years has generated new designs and improvements to the weapon system that can only come from good old American ingenuity and the free market.

Back to the matter at hand, pun totally unintentional, the A2 pistol grip may have seen its final days. Today the key word is ergonomics, something rarely heard when the m16 was first introduced.

Take the Magpul MIAD for instance.







Cost: USD$35.95

From the website -

Interchangeable front and rear straps, as well as a range of storage core options allow the end user to adjust the grip for hand size as well as dynamic mission requirements.

■Removable and replaceable front and rear panels for a custom fit over multiple hand sizes
■Improved ergonomics and positive anti-slip texture on both sides and rear back-strap
■Removable inner core that allows for storage (3-round plug included)
■Custom storage of batteries (waterproof) or spare bolt/firing pin is available with optional cores
Magpul has created a name for itself in the industry for its innovative designs and theory based products, like the MIAD, or the PMAG (which is highly in demand by troops in the Sand Box currently.)

Having a single grip that has multiple back strap options could potentially be an improvement over the system currently in use. Or it could be an expensive logistical nightmare.

Other manufacturers (including Magpul) offer other more ergonomic pistol grip options minus the adjustable back straps.

Would the ability to create a more personal grip for each individual soldier increase accuracy, trigger control, and at the same time decrease fatigue?

Probably.

Would the cost of executing a wide scale change out of troops grips, plus the questionable loss of ability to pick any weapon up and fire the same way every time be worth the Military to look into?

Definitely debatable..

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz0sUcK4eAN

[buglerbilly]

FN Fires Back on Mk-16 Death

by christian on July 2, 2010



Nearly a week after we ran our story on the cancellation of the Mk-16 Socom Combat Assault Rifle, manufacturer FN Herstal sent us an on-the-record response to the unfortunate development.

Before we get into the release, a little background. First of all, my dealings with FNH-USA in my decade as a defense reporter have been nothing but friendly and professional. The folks I’ve dealt with there have always been helpful and responsive to story queries and have on several occasions helped me in other areas of small arms and weaponry that had nothing to do with their systems.

I asked FNH-USA to comment on the Mk-16 story the day I was running it and I got a very detailed response from them on a variety of issues regarding the Mk-16 and 17 and Mk-13 – but all of it was provided “off the record” so, of course, I couldn’t use any of it in a story.

The statement they sent me last night was respectful and detailed, and it did not impugn my story or the command which cancelled a huge chunk of the SCAR program.

FNH fiercely defended their weapon and recognized the difficulty SOCOM has with budget pressure and requirements.


FNH USA believes the fact that the SCAR program recently passed Milestone C and was determined to be operationally effective / operationally suitable (OE/OS) for fielding, highlights the tremendous capability the weapons system offers deployed special operators.

FNH USA believes the issue is not whether the SCAR, and specifically the MK 16 variant, is the superior weapon system available today …it has already been proven to be just that. The issue is whether or not the requirement for a 5.56mm replacement outweighs the numerous other requirements competing for the customers’ limited budget.

The company also left a sort of pleading pitch for other services to consider the Mk-16 as an M4 alternative, but didn’t sound too positive about adoption of the “common receiver” concept.


While we know that the MK 17, to include the “common receiver” and corresponding 5.56mm conversion kit is an option, other Services and SOF components will have the ability to procure the MK 16 stand-alone rifle under the contract if it better meets their mission requirements.

At the end of the day, we all need to recognize that the folks at FNH-USA worked hard on this program and believed in it strongly. Both SCAR variants are great guns no matter how you slice it and the engineers, shooters and marketeers did their best to give operators what they needed.


In conclusion, the management and employees of FN are proud to provide this generation of special operators their first, entirely new assault rifle that meets and, in our opinion, exceeds the demands of today’s battlefield.

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz0sXTgLXHU

[buglerbilly]

Bravo Company MFG MOD 5 Gunfighter Charging Handle

July 3rd, 2010 | Product Announcement | Posted by Stickman

Bravo Company MFG has followed up on their improved M4 charging handle with their newest MOD 5 offering.



Modern training doctrine has most of us working the charging handle with our support hand while the primary hand stays on the pistol grip of the weapon. Initially, the weapon was designed for the shooter to grasp the charging handle with their firing hand, and to pull directly to the rear. This straight back method reduced the stress on the charging handle roll pin, but takes us out of a firing position.

Most troops (MIL or LEO) are using the flat of their support hand, or side of their index finger off their support hand to pull back on the charging handle while pushing forward with their firing hand on the pistol grip. This creates a very positive action for loading or clearing malfunction clearances. The down side is increased wear on the charging handle, with most of the charging handle roll pin taking the brunt of the abuse.

Bravo Company MFG teamed up with Vltor Weapon Systems to develop and manufacturer a unit that would create a stronger charging handle which would take the stress off the roll pin and redistribute it throughout the latch and body. Secondly, the latch was designed to keep the force inside the latch to prevent lateral pressure on the charging handle and receiver, resulting in smoother overall operation.

It sounds good in concept, but when it came to execution, Vltor went above and beyond with their typical attention to detail. The Bravo Company MFG “Gunfighter” Charging Handle is CNC machined from 7075 T6 billet aluminum, and hard coat anodized per Mil-A-8625F, Type III, Class 2. It looks like a piece of combat art when compared to its cheaper siblings.

The BCM Gunfighter is now available in three sizes. The GFH-MOD3 is the large latch for scoped applications, and the GFH-MOD4 is the slightly larger than standard size for increased nonslip grip. The newest GFH-MOD5 is what replicates the standard size M4 charging handle while adding texture, and retaining the above features that make for a bombproof charging handle.





You may also be interested in the original article Military Times wrote up regarding the MOD 3 and MOD4 GUNFIGHTER Charging handles. You can see the full writeup at the below link, or just check out the pictures in the gallery.

http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/2010/01/13/bravo-company-gunfighter-charging-handle/

[buglerbilly]

Bit of an update on the USMC IAR program..........numbers bought and USMC dispersion of guns..............from DiD

July 1/10: Media outlets report that in April 2010, USMC Commandant Gen. James T. Conway gave Corps officials the green light in April to issue approximately 450 H&K M27 IARs, enough to replace every M249 squad automatic weapon in 4 infantry battalions and 1 light armored reconnaissance (LAR) battalion. Each company in the 3 active infantry battalions and reserve battalion will receive 28 M27s: 1 for every SAW gunner, and 1 extra for the unit. These companies will also retain 6 M249s. The LAR battalion will receive 14 M27s, and completely replace its M249s.

The Corps intends to give these units 4-6 months of pre-deployment training with the new weapons, and they are expected to be in Afghanistan around November-December 2010. Assessments from the Marines in theater will determine whether or not the IAR program resolves the Commandant’s doubts, and continues into full production of about 4,476 M27s. Marine Corps requirements officials hope that Conway will decide whether or not to take the IAR into full-rate production by late 2011, after the field reviews are in.

The biggest issue may turn out to be a factor that hasn’t featured much in debates so far. The US Army (M14) and the British (L129A1) are both turning to 7.62mm IAR-type heavy assault rifle/ marksman weapons in Afghanistan. Its wide open spaces are creating long-range firefights where 5.56mm rounds become ineffective, but the enemy’s 7.62mm rounds remain so. The HK417 is the 7.62mm variant of the HK416, and a 7.62mm IAR could indeed trump short-range LMG suppression – but a decision to change calibers would almost certainly re-open the competition.

[buglerbilly]

There’s No Reliability Problem with the M4/M16

by christian on July 7, 2010



So says Kit Up! friend and veteran war correspondent C.J. Chivers in his latest post on the M4/M16 family of rifles.

In a thorougly researched and well-constructed post on the New York Times’ At War blog, Chivers does some great journalism by deconstructing the argument of the M4/M16′s reliability track record.

With detailed notes from conversations with over 100 Marines and Soldiers in combat, Chivers shows that most of the gripes about the M4 and M16′s reliability cannot be substantiated by on-the-ground research. Marine Gunners, Army weapons maintainers and others Chivers spoke with come back with little data to support reliability problems — make sure you hear this loud and clear: RELIABILITY problems.

He even asked Kit Up! to help provide specific information on Soldiers’ gripes about the M4 and we had to admit they were not backed up by actual hard data on failures or fouling in a fight.

Chivers doesn’t go into the caliber/stopping power debate just yet, but he will. Suffice it to say there’s no evidence from the field that the M4 has problems jamming, failing or going tits up in battle when used within its design limits. That’s not to say there haven’t been magazine problems — which the Army has tried to fix with a new magazine and the Corps seems to be optioning the ever-popular Magpul P-Mag.

Read Chivers’ excellent piece and be sure to help him out with data if he’s on the wrong track (but let us know too please!)…

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/2010/07/theres-no-reliability-problem-with-the-m4m16.html#comments#ixzz0t4TihrY7

[buglerbilly]

This is the referenced NY Times article from above.............

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 7, 2010, 8:34 am

Examining the Complaints About American Rifle Reliability

By C.J. CHIVERS


Tyler Hicks/The New York Times
A Marine from Third Battalion, Sixth Marines, during the initial sweep of Marja, Afghanistan, in February.

Since late last year, At War has looked at issues surrounding small-arms choices and performance in the Afghan war, by American units and insurgents alike. We’ll continue this theme with two quick posts in the next few days: one serving as a follow-up to the continuing conversation about American rifle reliability, the other a closer look at the small arms that Afghan fighters have been wielding against Marines and government forces in Marja.

First, that perennial subject: the reliability of modern American infantry rifles. Throughout the Afghan and Iraq wars, questions have circulated about the performance of the principal rifles issued to American troops. The arms in question – both M-16 assault rifles and their shorter offspring, the M-4 carbines — are descendants of rifles first introduced to American service in Vietnam. They are the longest-serving general-issue rifles in American military history, and yet they have not quite fully shed some of the poor reputation that the original M-16 earned during its bungled introduction in the 1960s.

Are latter-day concerns about the rifles warranted?

It depends on what you mean about concerns. We previously examined complaints about M-16 and M-4 performance that had circulated on blogs, in news stories and in government reports, as well as in an independent survey of veterans (See “How Reliable Is the M-16 Rifle?” and “The M-16 Argument Heats Up Again”). And we visited Colt Defense L.L.C. (See “The Making of the Military’s Standard Arms,” Part I and Part II), the world’s principal manufacturer of the M-16 line, and watched the rifles being made. The complaints about Colt’s rifles have been varied. Some covered reliability (accounts of a tendency of the rifles to jam or overheat during extended firing), others covered range (concerns that the rifles are not effective at the longer distances between combatants in rural desert fighting), and others criticized the weapon’s lethality (the so-called stopping power of the rifles’ bullets, as in, their ability to incapacitate a struck man).

The Reliability Question

The reliability questions interest me most, for two reasons. First, a rifle’s range and lethality are moot points if the rifle will not fire when a soldier needs it to fire. And second, effective range and lethality are related in part to allied cartridge choice for all NATO forces and to bullet composition — two decisions that are beyond a manufacturer’s purview.

So far this year, the photographer Tyler Hicks and I have spent roughly three months in the field in Afghanistan with American troops, many of whom are engaged in some of the most regular and intensive fighting of the war. As part of our work, we have been observing rifle performance and querying soldiers and Marines about their experiences in combat with what is arguably the most important piece of equipment they carry.

The question before us was simple: How do the reliability complaints about M-4s and M-16s we hear in the States line up against what we see and hear in the field, where the war is being fought? Put another way, could we verify the troops’ reported dislike of the rifle because of its reliability, and demonstrate the nature of any problems behind the reported disaffection?

The answer was a surprise: The M-4 and M-16 were not seen to be suffering from reliability problems, at least not among people whose paths have crossed ours.

Simply put, in observations in many firefights in harsh conditions, and in the experiences of Army and Marine grunts queried this year, the issue of rifle reliability seems much less pressing than it has appeared in accounts of widespread worries about or dislike of the M-4 and M-16.

An Informal Survey

Are there limits to such an informal survey?

Of course. I queried not quite 100 infantrymen in conversations over many months, and we witnessed intensive small-arms engagements on perhaps a dozen different days. For a war fought in varied conditions and terrain, and with more than 90,000 American service members now on the ground, any slice of that size has its limits. But it still bears consideration. The ground covered included some of Afghanistan’s worst for firearms: the agricultural areas of Helmand Province, where weapons are often coated in a fine powdered sand (the troops call it “moon dust”), and where many firefights result in Marines jumping into irrigation canals. This means that rifles are dusty, then often wet and covered in mud. Moreover, some of the firefights lasted a few hours, resulting in several expended magazines for each grunt. I found only one report of a jammed rifle — a mud-coated M-16 that failed to fire one time after a sergeant climbed out of a canal midfight. The sergeant cleared the weapon and chambered a fresh round, and the rifle resumed firing without further hitch.

Given these conditions, while we can’t draw definitive conclusions about the current performance of the M-4 and M-16 lines, it is nonetheless a jolt to find no accounts of significant weapons failures and then to read blog posts that declare that the weapons are either a disaster or at least widely loathed.

This is more so given the account of Chief Warrant Officer Joshua S. Smith, the Marine responsible for weapons training and performance in the Third Battalion, Sixth Marines, which is engaged in daily fighting in Marja. “We’ve had nil in the way of problems; we’ve had no issues,” he said of the M-4s and M-16s. The battalion has about 350 M-16s and 700 M-4s, he said.

To be clear, any weapon that does fail in combat because of the normal strains of infantry use — the heat that builds up in extended firing; the intrusion of water, mud, dust or sand; or any other reason — can be a disaster to the grunt and the unit involved. History offers a guide: The experiences of the troops with early M-16s that failed them in Vietnam are some of the most harrowing tales of American war.

To be equally clear, no sample of 100 or so grunts is enough to settle any longstanding argument. But after years of carrying an M-16 (the A2 version, in the 1980s and 1990s) and years of observing them in the field, often in firefights, I have yet to see a modern M-16 or M-4 fail in the ways described in others’ reports, and I have not found significant reliability complaints from troops using the rifles in trying environments. (Interestingly, two Web sites that closely follow military equipment decisions, www.military.com and www.defensereview.com, reported late last month that the special operations community had dropped its program to replace M-4s with a rifle colloquially known as the SCAR, in part because the SCAR was not living up to its early billing – a common trait among rifles in development – and because it was not regarded as offering an upgrade on the M-4 that was worth the investment.)

Does that mean that M-4s and M-16s have not failed in combat, and are not still failing?

No. But it is curious that the Army’s examination of the battle of Wanat, which was part of the fuel on the latest controversy, did not find systematic problems with weapons. And it is hard not to notice, as we have tried to examine the issues, that many of the complaints about M-4 and M-16 reliability are almost impossible to trace because they are either anonymous or do not include essential information, including the unit’s name, and the date and location of the failure. This makes the complaints of the last few years much different from the complaints of the mid-1960s, when the din from the field was such that a near deluge of angry veterans spoke openly of the problems, and the rifle was overhauled, as the early M-16 needed to be. If there are widespread problems with the rifles, then they should be detectable in units in heavy fighting.

At War, for now, will draw no larger conclusions than this: Whatever the merits of the concerns about the M-4 and the M-16, on the matter of latter-day reliability, the complaints that have boomed on the Web feel out of proportion to what can be documented in the field, and may well be overstated, even hyped. If we’ve got this wrong, or have been looking in the wrong places, help us out (my e-mail address is chivers@nytimes.com). But from what we’ve seen and heard, the energy behind the worries about rifle reliability and the urge to swap out M-4s and M-16s for another rifle might be better expended in finding ways to counter improvised explosive devices, or other actual and readily discernible dangers and disaffections in the Afghan war.

[buglerbilly]

Formal statement from FN Herstal...............

FN 5.56 SCAR Retained in USSOCOM's Inventory

(Source: FN Herstal; issued July 7, 2010)

Belgium-based firearms manufacturer FN Herstal hereby refutes the allegations recently found on the web that USSOCOM abandoned the 5.56 version of the SCAR rifle and reconfirms USSOCOM's decision to acquire the full FN SCAR family of weapons, including the 5.56mm rifle.

The FN SCAR family of weapons consists of the 5.56mm SCAR rifle, 7.62mm SCAR rifle and 40mm LV Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module (respectively designated as MK 16, MK 17 and MK 13 by USSOCOM). These three components were developed by FN Herstal in close cooperation with USSOCOM and have each met all the operational and fielding tests required by the program.

This resulted in the notification by USSOCOM last May that the full SCAR system entered into Milestone C phase, allowing production and deployment of the full range of SCAR weapons. The 5.56 version will be part of USSOCOM's inventory.

The choice between the 5.56 and the 7.62 caliber will be left to the discretion of each constitutive component of USSOCOM's Joint Command (e.g. Seals, Rangers, Army Special Forces, USMC, AFSOC) depending on their specific missions on today's battlefield.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Sorry Joe, No New AR Grip for You

by christian on July 8, 2010



You might remember we posted a piece from our guest blogger Sean Fisher on the pluses and minuses of customizing the pistol grip on your issued M4.

We had some good feedback on the idea from our readers, but I wanted to forward a reply I got from PEO Soldier on what the actual policy was on retrofitting new pistol grips on your M4 (or M16 for that matter) in combat.

According to the service, straight leg Joes are not allowed to customize that grip whatsoever. Despite some people who say that a correct fitting grip is key to marksmanship, the Army is worried it could mess up the weapon’s functionality.


While a pistol grip may appear like a “minor” change to a Soldier, there are actually significant design implications inherent in the grip that could adversely affect the weapon’s performance. In the case of the pistol grip for M4/M16 weapons, for example, the bolt that fastens the grip to the lower receiver actually goes through to the inside of the trigger housing. If the design tolerances on either the bolt or the grip do not meet specifications, the bolt could adversely affect trigger function. This is one small example of how an unauthorized modification could have a dangerous result.

The Army says it issued a “precautionary message” back in 2000 that explicitly prohibited changing the grip (before we were involved in two shooting wars) and referred Joes to the publication AR 750-10, Army Modification Program for more details.

I don’t know a thimble full about weapons compared to most of our readers here at Kit Up!, but that sounds reasonable to me…or have things changed so much that this restriction is unreasonable?

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz0t8Ko1Mbi

[buglerbilly]

SCAR Mk-16 Reverb (To Buy or Not To Buy)

by christian on July 9, 2010



Wow…two full weeks after we broke the news that (officially) US Special Operations Command had canned the Mk-16, the story is still causing ripples across the Internet, in Congress, the services and in industry.

Fervent denials, insults, attaboys and eye-rolls have greeted the story in various corners but for most close observers of the SCAR program, the news was not surprising.

I’m fine with constructive criticism of my stories and was quick to explain where I messed up or was misunderstood.

But as the curiosity of the program changes keep evolving, two days ago the parent company of FNH-USA which has the SCAR contract with SOCOM, issued a release seemingly contradicting our story…(Big props to Thefirearmsblog where I first saw this)


Belgium-based firearms manufacturer FN Herstal hereby refutes the allegations recently found on the web that USSOCOM abandoned the 5.56 version of the SCAR rifle and reconfirms USSOCOM’s decision to acquire the full FN SCAR family of weapons, including the 5.56mm rifle.

But that clearly doesn’t square with what SOCOM told me. Here’s verbatum what SOCOM PAO Maj. Wes Ticer provided for me on June 25:


After completing testing, US Special Operations Command decided to procure the 7.62 mm Mk 17 rifle, the 40mm Mk 13 grenade launcher and the Mk 20 Sniper Support rifle variants of the Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) manufactured by FN Herstal. The command will not purchase the 5.56 mm Mk 16. (emphasis added)

Who’s right?

FNH-USA spokeswoman Elaine Golladay suggested we revisit the more detailed July 2 release from the US-based company for a clearer picture of what’s happening…


The issue is whether or not the requirement for a 5.56mm replacement outweighs the numerous other requirements competing for the customers’ limited budget. That is a question that will only be determined by the customer.

So, I went ahead and contacted SOCOM to square the two releases and was told the command hadn’t reversed course…


There are no changes to the information that we previously released to you about USSOCOM plans to acquire the SCAR.

Now look, I understand if we’re splitting hairs here — that what FN Herstal meant to say was that component commands within SOCOM will or may buy the Mk-16 while the overall command, USSOCOM, will not. Or maybe there’s just a translation error. I don’t know.

Suffice it to say that actually nothing has changed — that at least in the customer’s eyes, there’s nothing to “refute” or “reconfirm.”

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/2010/07/scar-mk-16-reverb-to-buy-or-not-to-buy.html#more-1276#ixzz0tEIqswyx

[buglerbilly]

Magpul Releases Rail Vertical Grip

July 9th, 2010 Magpul has introduced their Rail Vertical Grip.

The Mil Std 1913 rail compatible grip is of a shorter design than many others on the market which makes it great for those wishing to use it to index their thumb over grip. Its ergonomic design is also comfortable for those shooters who broomstick their grips.




Cost: USD$24.95

Designed for use with milspec 1913 Picatinny rail hand guards, the RVG is a basic, light weight, cost-effective vertical fore grip. Shape is ergonomically designed for use as a traditional vertical grip. It has also been optimized for use with the "thumb break method" of shooting as taught by Magpul DynamicsSM.

Includes a custom fitted universal mounting rail and all mounting hardware.

Made in U.S.A.



Only available in Black.

[buglerbilly]

From Soldier Systems..............

SCAR Wars

July 10th, 2010

The fur continues to fly in the controversy that just won’t end. Two weeks ago, Kit up! broke the story that SOCOM would not be purchasing or fielding any of the 5.56 Mk16 SCAR-Lights. Then, the deluge of fanboys and shills hit the internet like a tsunami denying the story. Next, FNH USA issued a press release that was more plea than promise. Unfortunately, they also admitted on message boards that they had not yet been informed of SOCOM’s decision. Welcome to the world of Government contracting. It happens. SOCOM asked them to build a beast. They built it, and then SOCOM decided they didn’t want what they had asked for.

Now like a spurned lover, the parent company, FN Herstal in Belgium has taken the offensive issuing a new press release originally posted through The Firearm Blog, refuting the Kit Up! story. Looks like FNH hired a wily English major to craft this one because it splits more hairs than Donald Trump’s barber.

Belgium-based firearms manufacturer FN Herstal hereby refutes the allegations recently found on the web that USSOCOM abandoned the 5.56 version of the SCAR® rifle and reconfirms USSOCOM’s decision to acquire the full FN SCAR® family of weapons, including the 5.56mm rifle.

The FN SCAR® family of weapons consists of the 5.56mm SCAR® rifle, 7.62mm SCAR® rifle and 40mm LV Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module (respectively designated as MK 16, MK 17 and MK 13 by USSOCOM). These three components were developed by FN Herstal in close cooperation with USSOCOM and have each met all the operational and fielding tests required by the program. This resulted in the notification by USSOCOM last May that the full SCAR® system entered into Milestone C phase, allowing production and deployment of the full range of SCAR® weapons. The 5.56 version will be part of USSOCOM’s inventory.

The choice between the 5.56 and the 7.62 caliber will be left to the discretion of each constitutive component of USSOCOM’s Joint Command (e.g. Seals, Rangers, Army Special Forces, USMC, AFSOC) depending on their specific missions on today’s battlefield.

We have emphasized a few key terms in the release and find it quite interesting that a foreign company, FN Herstal is now speaking for USSOCOM especially considering that Kit Up! followed up with SOCOM and they confirmed the details of his earlier story. The last bit is also telling in that it seems that FN Herstal has worked out a deal with one or more of the components to take the Mk16s off of their hands. It will be interesting to see how that works out.

A word or two for FN writ large. Stop fanning the flames. It will all go away if you just keep building great guns and stop issuing ill-thought press releases. We’ve been fans of FNH for years, but to perpetuate this is costing you in terms of good will.

[buglerbilly]

APEX Rails

July 19th, 2010 | Product Announcement | Posted by Stickman

Apex Machining Company, Inc. has a new rail on the market, and its toothed “Gator grip” make it stand out from the rails you are used to seeing on your duty weapon. This free floating, all aluminum rail is a one piece tube that attaches by way of cutting the delta ring and fastening directly to the barrel nut, this makes for a quick and simple installation. The rail can be run as a tube, or you can drop on accessory 1913 rails to a variety of places. It also features built in QD sockets for sling mounts.



The first step in working with any weapon system is pretty obvious, and if you aren’t aware that you need to ensure the weapon is unloaded and safe, please stop and find someone who has those skills.

Below you can see the basic parts in the kit we will be installing. There are two locking collars, the one piece tube, and 1913 spec rail sections. Not shown are the screws used for installation, however, they are included.



Remove the handguards, and then cut the delta ring off. Once the outer shell is removed, grab pliers and twist to remove the spring, neither the shell nor spring are needed during this installation. With these pieces off, place one half of the locking collar in place, and you should be seeing something like the below image.



Place the second half on, and secure them with the provided screws. Make sure you use a thread locker.



Slide the one piece tube over the two installed halves, and use the 4 screws to lock the tube to the collar.



Now you have the option of installing rails. If you are using this rail to free float the barrel, and are only concentrating on accuracy, using 1913 rail sections might not have an appeal to you. If you are using this tube and throwing on iron sights, lights, a vertical foregrip, or other items, you are going to be putting 1913 spec rail sections on. Installation of these is simple. With the long top rail, you screw directly into the tube (which has threads). For the lower rail or side rails, a nut is used to hold the screw in place.

Shown below is the upper without the upper rail installed.



Here is the same upper with the top 1913 rail installed.



The 12.5″ rail installed on the 11.5″ barrel weights 15.1 ounces. Also available are

Carbine- 7.125″ 9.76 oz
Ext. Carbine- 8.5″ 10.5oz
Mid- 9.0″ 11.0oz

To wrap this up, the rail feels good in my hands, and installation is simplistic. While prices are not yet set, I’ve been told that these should be pretty easy on the pocket. If you are looking for a free floating tube or rail, or the ability to swap back and forth, the APEX Rail is worth a look.

300 Industrial Circle
PO Box 2576
White City, OR 97503

Phone: 541-826-3713
Fax: 541-826-1476
9am – 4:30pm PST
Mon – Thur

sales@apexmachineshop.com







Article Link here: http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/2010/07/19/apex-rails/

[buglerbilly]

Mk-17 Common Receiver Will Save Mk-16 SCAR

by christian on July 19, 2010



Or that’s what one blogger on a prominent weapons site said the other day…

Kit Up! friend and gun guru David Crane of Defense Review forwarded along a piece by one of his contributors, Chen Lee, about how this mysterious “common receiver” that FNH is developing for its Mk-17 SCAR-H will save the Mk-16 – sort of.

As the MK16 SCAR-L won the initial contract, the planned evolution of this weapon was for it to employ a multicaliber single receiver, better know as the “common receiver”. This explains the recent decision to run with the Mk-17 and use a 5.56mm adapter kit/conversion kit for it and to produce a common receiver/multicaliber weapons platform.

Sure, the original solicitation called for the development of a common receiver that could be adapted to the rifle so that an operator could fire both 7.62 or 5.56 (or whatever?) ammo the situation called for. But it’s a stretch to say that the development of a common receiver “explains the recent decision to run with the Mk-17 and use a 5.56 adaptor…” What decision to do that?

SOCOM told me on the record that no decision has been made on the still-developmental common receiver, so unless Lee has some inside gouge that he’s not citing, there’s no evidence SOCOM will use the “5.56 adaptor.”

The post also spins the yarn that the Mk-16 was just rolled into the Mk-17 and the common receiver program:

So, when SOCOM decided to move the development funding for the the Mk-16 and Mk-17 and roll it into the Mk17 with a common receiver, it was also part of the cycle of development, but that announcement created the appearance of the MK16 program’s cancellation, and resulting reportage with that interpretation…

Again, “decided”…? On the record, SOCOM told me spending money on the Mk-16 wasn’t worth it since it was only a marginal improvement over the M4 and saw no use in spending SOCOM dollars on a weapon the services buy their snake eaters already. And the meme that that Mk-16 wasn’t “cancelled” and that only hyperbolic “reportage” “interpreted” the fact that the command had decided to stop buying the Mk-16 and have all those in the field returned as a “cancellation” is borderline delusional. Give me a break. It’s CANCELLED! Live with it!

I give great credit to my friend David Crane who put in an editorial note backing me up. This issue is clearly very emotional to FH fans (myself included) because they put so much work and hope into this program only to have the vast bulk of it unceremoniously ripped out from under them.

So I understand there’s some desire to paint lipstick on this pig. And Kit Up! won’t take it personally…

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz0uBC6N8RS

[buglerbilly]

Can the FN MK17 SCAR-H (SCAR-Heavy) 7.62mm Common Receiver and 5.56mm Caliber Conversion Kit Save the SCAR Program?

On July 16, 2010, in Featured, Rifles And Carbines, Special Operations, by David Crane .By Chen Lee a.k.a. “SMGLee”

(Edited by David Crane)
defrev (at) gmail (dot) com

July 16, 2010

With all due respect to SMGLee, he's an educated civilian who shoots a lot and takes a damn fine pic...........he's not a rifle designer nor is he heavily involved in the industry.........as long as you remember that feel free to read what may or may not be true or happening..........

Some have said the SCAR is dead (at least the MK16 SCAR-L variant), but from the start of the SCAR program (PDF format document link), its goal has been a receiver that can handle both the 5.56mm NATO (5.56×45mm) and 7.62 NATO (7.62×51mm) cartridges. So, as the various AR manufactures complained, the FN MK16 SCAR-Light (SCAR-L) and FN MK17 SCAR-Heavy (SCAR-H) (PDF format) were born to make the competition more achievable by the industry. As the MK16 SCAR-L won the initial contract, the planned evolution of this weapon was for it to employ a multicaliber single receiver, better know as the “common receiver”. This explains the recent decision to run with the Mk-17 and use a 5.56mm adapter kit/conversion kit for it and to produce a common receiver/multicaliber weapons platform.

The ball for a new combat rifle for SOCOM (USSOCOM) started rolling in the late 90s, and over time, this ball would roll into what would eventually become the the now famous SCAR program (PDF format) on the heels of a solicitation that was released shortly after 9/11, when funding began to pour into SOCOM. From the start, the SCAR weapons concept was to be developed to include a combat rifle and sniper variant in both 5.56mm and 7.62mm calibers. However, once FN Herstal/FNH USA won the contract, and evaluators discovered during one of the test cycles that the MK16, outfitted with with FN’s standard hammer-forged, chrome lined barrel, was capable of shooting 8-inch (8″) 10-round groups at 800 yard during one of the testing cycle–yes that is ten rounds at 800 yards, all funnelled into an 8″ group–the idea of developing a 5.56 sniper variant was cancelled. This freed SOCOM up to concentrate on the Mk16, Mk17, and Mk20 SSR (Sniper Support Rifle) with a SCAR-PR (Precision Rifle), or the so called “Shroud” as the DMR (Designated Markman Rifle). So, when SOCOM decided to move the development funding for the the Mk-16 and Mk-17 and roll it into the Mk17 with a common receiver, it was also part of the cycle of development, but that announcement created the appearance of the MK16 program’s cancellation, and resulting reportage with that interpretation (Editor’s Note: DefenseReview does not necessarily agree with the author’s interpretation of recent events. We don’t necessarily disagree, either. We’re just not sure, yet. The fact is, the MK16 SCAR program is effectively cancelled at present, if only temporarily, before the MK17 SCAR common receiver solution is implemented and subsequently adopted in large numbers (if it’s eventually adopted in large numbers. Time will tell.).

Some might say the MK17 platform is too large and heavy for the 5.56mm cartridge. However, the Mk17 utilizes a 7000-series extruded-aluminum (sheet metal) receiver with a monolithic rail system and brace-welds (brace welding). If you make this receiver a common receiver and offer a 5.56mm caliber conversion kit, thus turning the weapon into a 5.56mm platform, you’ve really only added about an inch (1″) in length to the existing Mk16 receiver (increasing your usable real estate) and a half pound (.5 lbs) in weight, with slightly more plastic on the trigger housing. You’re still running the same barrel and folding/telescoping buttstock configurations as the MK16. The bolt carrier group, of course, must be changed to run the 5.56mm cartridge. So, even though, in the end, a 5.56mm-converted Mk17 weighs a half pound more than the dedicated Mk16 SCAR-L, it’s still a lightweight system, especially compared to the Remington ACR (Advanced Combat Rifle), formerly known as the MagPul Masada in prototype form.

Some have noted that the Mk17 has experienced short-stroking problems when fired off-hand or if the weapon wasn’t held in a secure fashion. This is true, but no one ever explained the reason for this. The current crop of standard-issue 7.62×51mm ammo within the inventory (like M80 ball, utilizing a 147gr bullet) wasn’t designed to shoot in a 13.5-inch (13.5″) or 16-inch (16″) barrel. so a program to develop a 7.62mm NATO round that will support and optimize the SCAR/Mk17 platform was started, called SOST (Special Operations Science and Technology). The SOST program initially yielded a .308 Win. round that weighed in at 135gr (remember, the standard M80 ball round weighs 147gr) and it was also down-loaded to ease some of the complaints coming in that a lightweight (but of course too heavy as a 5.56mm rifle) Mk17 was recoiling too hard. This new ammo wasn’t really field-tested thoroughly before being deployed with the Mk17 into unit evaluation and combat. This bit of misstep caused the rumors to run amok about how unreliable the MK17 has been, especially when fired off-hand, and not securely from the shoulder. But I have personnally witnessed an operator firing standard M80 7.62mm NATO ball ammo through a MK17 while holding only the pistol grip and vertical foregrip with the gun out to the side. The weapon shot fine, magazine after magazine. So, stories about the Mk17 short-stroking seem troubling only until one knows the whole story behind it.

So, is the FN MK16 SCAR-L dead? NO (Editor’s Note: Both the Defense Review editorial staff and Kit Up! maintain the opposing position: that the MK16 has indeed been effectively cancelled, at least for the indefinite future). Many operators want the FN MK17 SCAR-H battle rifle/carbine/SBR (Short Barreled Rifle) as a new capability for the warfighter in the 7.62mm/.308 trim, not as a replacement capability for the already-proven (battle-proven) Colt M4/M4A1 Carbine and MK18 MOD 0/ M4 CQBR (Close Quarters Battle Receiver) SBR 5.56mm/.223 Rem. systems. The Mk17 will introduce a new capability that SOCOM warfighter hasn’t had, to date: a modern 7.62mm/.308 battle rifle/carbine/SBR that’s lightweight, modular (with hot-swappable barrels), reliable, and accurate. Is Mk-16 better than the M4/M4A1? NO. The Mk16 does not provide a measurable or significant increase in combat capability or any lethality advantage over the M4/M4A1 carbine/rifle platform, so many operators have asked the following question: Why replace a good-capability weapon system with a proven track record and a high degree/level of end-user satisfaction, a weapon that has benefited from continued, long-term product improvement and evolution cycles over the past 20 years, with a brand new, unproven weapon system (FN MK16 SCAR-L) that does not really provide any real increase in combat performance?

Remember, the Colt M4/M4A1 Carbine platform came out around the late 1980s, and continued product development and improvements over the past twenty years made it one of the most capable and reliable 5.56mm weapons in the world. So, the redirection of funding to the MK17 7.62mm platform was inevitable. SOCOM will therefore be taking two of the best combat rifles into the Global War on Terror (GWOT) for the foreseeable future: the famed M4/M4A1 and the new kid on the block, the Mk17. The question is, will the M4/M4A1 be replaced someday by the SCAR? The answer is most likely YES! The M4/M4A1 will be replaced not because the Mk17 with the 5.56mm conversion kit is more reliable, or because it performs better (it doesn’t), no sir. The MK17 multicaibler weapons platform will most likely replace the M4/M4A1 because some bean counter in Washington will eventually figure out he does not have to buy a new M4 or M4A1 Carbine in order to shoot 5.56mm ammo at the enemy. He can instead just buy a 5.56mm conversion kit for the MK17 at 1/4 of the cost of the M4/M4A1, and the Mk-17 will be able to shoot the same 5.56mm ammo (62gr M855A1 “Green Ammo”, 77gr MK262 MOD 1, 70gr 5.56 Optimized a.k.a. “Brown Tip” ammo with Barnes solid copper Triple-Shock (TM) X Bullet a.k.a. TSX Bullet technology, 62gr MK318 MOD 0 SOST, you name it). The M4/M4A1 AR platform weapons will not be replaced because of their performance capabilities or lack thereof. They will ultimately be replaced because of the allmighty dollar! That’s it. The FN MK17 5.56mm conversion kit will simply be more cost-effective, i.e. cheeper…and that, ladies and gentlemen will be that.

Editor’s Note: DefenseReview will be updating this article with hi-res photos from the author, Chen Lee, soon.

[buglerbilly]

From the FireArms blog.........

The SOCOM SCAR program is cancelled

Christian Lowe, the managing editor of Military.com, has published a blog post categorically stating that he has it on record that the SCAR Mk-16 has been cancelled ...


And the meme that that Mk-16 wasn’t “cancelled” and that only hyperbolic “reportage” “interpreted” the fact that the command had decided to stop buying the Mk-16 and have all those in the field returned as a “cancellation” is borderline delusional. Give me a break. It’s CANCELLED! Live with it!

UPDATE: I removed the photo from the article. The photo was of a SCAR Mk-17 (SCAR-H) which has not been canceled. My apologies.

[buglerbilly]

Italy Has a Modular, Multi-Caliber Rifle in Service Now

by christian on July 27, 2010



With all the talk about the demise of the Mk-16 SCAR and it’s reinvention as a caliber conversion to the Mk-17, it might be instructive to resurrect a brief delivered at this year’s Small Arms Symposium in May.

Former H&K marketing guy and freelance gun guru Jim Schatz had a wide ranging talk that focused in part on commercially available options for fielding an enhanced battle rifle now that is multi-barrelled and multi-caliber.

He mentioned the Beretta ARX-160, which is in service now with the Italian army, outlining its capability as either a 5.56, 7.62 or 6.8 (and 5.45) ”without any tools.” Well, this weapon cropped up again in the latest issue of Tactical Weapons magazine, published by our friends at Tactical-Life.com and Harris Publications. There’s a pretty detailed profile of the weapon and it’s capabilities.




Beretta has made good use of the lessons learned by Italian soldiers in the field. In order to be more reliable in sand and dusty conditions, the ARX160 has been designed to function with minimal lubrication. The ARX160 can also be field stripped into a bare minimum of components without tools, to facilitate maintenance. There are also no small parts or pins that can be easily lost. Ambidextrous, the Beretta ARX160 can switch its charging handle to either the right or left side in a matter of seconds. The direction that spent cartridge casings eject can also be easily changed. An adjustable four-position collapsible stock is a standard feature. The butt plate is rounded and features a checkered, slip-resistant surface. During transport in tight spaces or for use during actions such as fast-roping and parachuting, the stock can also be folded forward along the right side of the receiver.

Both the safety/fire selector and the magazine release controls are designed to be ergonomic and ambidextrous. There is a fire selector switch on both the right and left side just above the pistol grip. This location allows the selector to be easily manipulated by the shooter’s thumb while still keeping a positive grip on the weapon while held in the firing position. There is also a magazine release control on both sides of the receiver located just above the trigger and magazine well. The magazine release can be operated using the index finger, and like the selector switch, it can be done while holding the rifle in the firing position. As a bonus there is also a third magazine release along the bottom, forward section of the trigger guard. All three magazine releases are fenced to minimize the chance of an unintentional magazine ejection.

The cool thing about this rifle (and I’m sure many of you already know about it, but I’d love to see some discussion here) is that it’s in service NOW. The ACR is still a player, but not widely fielded and the SCAR common receiver isn’t fully matured (at least as far as SOCOM is concerned). But what Schatz brings up and is a very real issue in the Army’s search for an improved carbine is that there are weapons on the market today that can give Joes and grunts major improvements over the M-4/M-16 with no further R&D needed. What’s taking so long?

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz0uv5guU00

[Tim]

Can someone tell me if there's actually a case for the US Army providing a service-wide replacement to the M-16/M-4 series? To me it seems unlikely that they'll replace their infantry weapons on a large scale until there's a major change, ie weapons coming out of LSAT (just for example) becoming suitable for production and deployment. Or am I barking up the wrong tree? It just seems like a hell of a lot of money to spend for minimal increase in capability unless you're getting some really significant improvements.

[Gubler, A.]

Can someone tell me if there's actually a case for the US Army providing a service-wide replacement to the M-16/M-4 series? To me it seems unlikely that they'll replace their infantry weapons on a large scale until there's a major change, ie weapons coming out of LSAT (just for example) becoming suitable for production and deployment. Or am I barking up the wrong tree? It just seems like a hell of a lot of money to spend for minimal increase in capability unless you're getting some really significant improvements.

The last time the US Army seriously considered a service wide replacement o f the M16 was the Advanced Combat Rifle (ACR) program of the late 1980s. The base requirement was a 100% increase in combat accuracy over the M16 otherwise it wasn’t worth it. While one competitor provided the potential for this 100% increase the test was rigged against it via the uneven provision of combat optics. Since none of the other weapons exceeded the combat accuracy of a M16A2 with x4 ACOG the ACR was scrapped.

The competitive weapon was the H&K G11 firing a salvo burst of three rounds. It was even more accurate than the M16A2 with x4 ACOG despite only having a x1 sight. With only a x1 sight it did not provide the required 100% improvement over the baseline iron sighted M16A2. If it had been trialled with a x4 ACOG then the performance should have been close to if not higher than 100%. But since the weapon used was not customised from the German Army’s specification then no magnification scope was provided.

Apart from increasing combat accuracy the German Army also wanted to decrease the training requirement for its mostly conscript armies. So a magnification scope would not have allowed a slash in training time compared to the G3 despite the increase in accuracy. The Germans got a weapon that took less to train on, was much lighter and significantly more accurate in combat. That is until German Unification required significant government spending savings and G11 was cancelled.

[Tim]

The last time the US Army seriously considered a service wide replacement o f the M16 was the Advanced Combat Rifle (ACR) program of the late 1980s. The base requirement was a 100% increase in combat accuracy over the M16 otherwise it wasn’t worth it. While one competitor provided the potential for this 100% increase the test was rigged against it via the uneven provision of combat optics. Since none of the other weapons exceeded the combat accuracy of a M16A2 with x4 ACOG the ACR was scrapped.

The competitive weapon was the H&K G11 firing a salvo burst of three rounds. It was even more accurate than the M16A2 with x4 ACOG despite only having a x1 sight. With only a x1 sight it did not provide the required 100% improvement over the baseline iron sighted M16A2. If it had been trialled with a x4 ACOG then the performance should have been close to if not higher than 100%. But since the weapon used was not customised from the German Army’s specification then no magnification scope was provided.

Apart from increasing combat accuracy the German Army also wanted to decrease the training requirement for its mostly conscript armies. So a magnification scope would not have allowed a slash in training time compared to the G3 despite the increase in accuracy. The Germans got a weapon that took less to train on, was much lighter and significantly more accurate in combat. That is until German Unification required significant government spending savings and G11 was cancelled.

I see - so a similar level of increase (in whatever were deemed to be the most important performance characteristics) is one would see in a requirement today in order for a replacement to be worth it? I don't know for sure but I've sometimes gotten the impression that the lethality issues experienced with the M4 are over-reported somewhat, to the point of appearing to be a larger issue than it is. The M855A1 round sounds like it addresses some of the issues, at least - and does it a lot cheaper than replacing everything with a 6.5mm/6.8mm rifle ever would, I imagine.

[buglerbilly]

SCAR Approved for ‘Full Rate Production’

by christian on August 16, 2010



It's back! Altho its not clear whether this is based on the so-called Common Receiver allowing for easy switch between Mk-16 & Mk-17...........

SCAR maker FNH-USA announced today that SOCOM had approved the Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle program “family of weapons” for “full rate production.” That includes the Mk-17 SCAR-H which fires 7.62 rounds, the Mk-13 grenade launcher and the Mk-16 SCAR-L which fires 5.56 rounds.

The company says it has “ramped up production and assembly at its manufacturing facilities to meet the delivery orders placed by USSOCOM.” I shot a note to their spokesperson asking for clarification on this, but haven’t gotten a response yet. How much has it “ramped up” and what are SOCOM’s orders?

Again, as we wrote exhaustively about in June, SOCOM has decided not to purchase the Mk-16. So how much the company is “ramping up” for a relatively limited buy of Mk-17s and Mk-13s is unclear.


The heart of the FN SCAR system consists of two highly adaptable modular rifle platforms and a grenade launcher. Type-designated as the MK 16 and the MK 17, both rifles are available with three different barrel lengths optimized for conducting operations in close-quarters combat, standard infantry and longer-range precision fire roles. All SCAR barrels are tightly attached to a monolithic receiver and can be easily interchanged by the operator in minutes to instantly meet virtually any mission requirement.

The MK 17 (7.62mm) is also the base of the SCAR common receiver currently under final test and evaluation by USSOCOM. The SCAR common receiver can accommodate multi-caliber conversion kits.

We’ll let you know if we hear anything more on this…

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/2010/08/scar-approved-for-full-rate-production.html#comments#ixzz0wp70kYGu

[buglerbilly]

And its back out! Appears it was a BS announcement from the manufacturer..........I've no idea WTF is going on here from FHN USA and nor does anyone else..........BS and even more BS from them...........

Stop the Madness: FNH Tries Smoke and Mirrors on SCAR-L Debacle…

by christian on August 18, 2010

…and leaves a LOT unsaid.



Well, we knew something like this would happen, we just didn’t know how.

On Monday, SCAR maker FNH-USA shouted from the rooftops in a vaguely-worded press release that SOCOM had approved full rate production of the SCAR “family of weapons.” The company said it was “ramping up production” to meet the “delivery orders placed by SOCOM.”

We sent a note to FNH-USA spokeswoman Elaine Golladay asking for clarification on what “ramped up” means and SOCOM’s “delivery orders” and got no response.

Kit Up! played it straight on our initial reporting of this announcement, but it looks as if the folks at FNH-USA tried to pull a fast one on us and tarnish Military.com’s reporting and Kit Up! as well. A company rep forwarded the press release to two popular forums, figuring (correctly) the SCAR fans on the board would read the announcement and assume the Mk-16 is being purchased by SOCOM.

I’m being called a “doofus” and that I “no [sic] more about such things than all others” and that I “jumped the gun” and “made assumptions” in order to “set a negative tone.”

I ask these keen analysts to prove that SOCOM is purchasing the Mk-16 in the numbers it had originally asked (about 38,000) or that the command is actually going to keep the 850 SCAR-Ls out in the field. Where in this latest FNH-USA release does it say that SOCOM is indeed going to purchase the Mk-16? You won’t be able to find it because it’s not there and you won’t be able to find any evidence that SOCOM is going to purchase the 38,000 Mk-16s it had originally said it would — because it’s not.

The FNH-USA press release proves nothing, zip, nada and it certainly does not belie (that means render untrue) our reporting that SOCOM shitcanned the Mk-16.

It’s a bummer that some are attacking my credibility and character on this story, but I’m not surprised. People basically will believe what they want to believe and if they hear anything to the contrary, they’ll just reflexively shoot the messenger.

Anyone who knows anything about this program (including the FNH-USA rep who chummed the waters with this made-up ‘news’) knew all along the worst kept secret was that SOCOM was going to ditch the Mk-16 for various reasons — just no one had reported it on the record. Until we did. So for SCAR watchers, this isn’t a surprise. People can pick at the margins of the language used in the Military.com story and quibble with the wording and I accept that.

But the bottom line has — again — not changed. SOCOM is not buying the Mk-16 and the FNH-USA press release of Monday August 16 changes nothing.

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz0x0PDm3FF

[buglerbilly]

Kit Up! Put Through the SCAR-L Grinder

by christian on August 19, 2010



I’d like to sincerely thank the readers here at Kit Up! for their incredibly respectful conversation about the swirling mass or rumors, innuendo, assumptions and insults that are rearing their ugly heads again on the SCAR program right now.

Kit Up! reader Ricardo Almeida had a very good comment yesterday that I’d like to answer in a post all its own. His comment was respectful and cogently argued and I probably should have done this earlier but I’ll do it now.

Ricardo said what I think a silent majority of SCAR program followers are wondering and that is “until SOCOM puts out a statement, it’s all rumor and guessing”…

Well, here you go:

On June 25, USSOCOM PAO Maj. Wes Ticer provided to Kit Up! an official, on the record statement answering several questions we sent him about the status of the program. The main motivation for the official query on our part was to actually put to rest the rumors swirling around the program (I’m sure many of you reading this had heard them too) and in fact, a commenter way back on Kit Up! asked the simple question: “What is the latest on the SCAR?”

So, I asked.

Here’s what Ticer provided to me on June 25 (I’ve excerpted the part pertaining specifically to the Mk-16):


After completing testing, US Special Operations Command decided to procure the 7.62 mm Mk 17 rifle, the 40mm Mk 13 grenade launcher and the Mk 20 Sniper Support rifle variants of the Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) manufactured by FN Herstal. The command will not purchase the 5.56 mm Mk 16.

The Mk 17 will fill an existing capability gap for a 7.62 mm rifle. The Mk 16 does not provide enough of a performance advantage over the M4 to justify spending limited USSOCOM funds when competing priorities are taken into consideration.

On July 9, FN-Herstal (the Belgian parent company) put out a statement contradicting our story:


Belgium-based firearms manufacturer FN Herstal hereby refutes the allegations recently found on the web that USSOCOM abandoned the 5.56 version of the SCAR rifle and reconfirms USSOCOM’s decision to acquire the full FN SCAR family of weapons, including the 5.56mm rifle.

Given this statement, I reconfirmed the USSOCOM statement with the command’s top PAO who said nothing had changed since the June 25 statement.

Then yesterday (August 18), I again re-reconfirmed the June 25 statement to Kit Up! stating the command would not buy the Mk-16 after we received incoming rounds spurred by FNH-USA’s release on full rate production.

So, I just wanted to set the record straight. We are not in the business of reporting rumors on a story as important (and emotional) as this. I searched for the facts, got them from the government source and reported them to Kit Up! readers (and I’ll also reiterate, I did seek comment from FNH-USA and got a detailed statement from them, but it was OFF THE RECORD so I could not use it).

UPDATE: Gabe Bailey, the marketing director for military weapons at FNH-USA confirmed our reporting on another forum saying USSOCOM is not purchasing the Mk-16:


You are correct and I am not hiding any facts. And, as the main customer has stated, they do not plan to buy the MK 16…in my humble opinion, this has nothing to do with performance but rather smartly-weighed budget decisions.

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz0x3wN8VXl

[buglerbilly]

Interesting and extensive review and comparison of the SCAR 16 versus the AR family..............worth a read in my opinion.

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=62889

[buglerbilly]

From Soldier Systems............

The Army’s Dual Path Strategy for a Service Rifle

October 15th, 2010



PEO-Soldier posted an excellent article detailing the the Dual Path Strategy for the Next Generation of Army Service Rifles. The graphic below from PEO-Soldier gives you the main points, but make sure you take the time to go read the actual article.



There are however, a few things that the article doesn’t tell you. For example, while the Army is currently purchasing 25,000 M4A1 carbines from Colt Defense, the weapons needed to fulfill the remainder of the Army’s requirement as well as Sister Service buys and Foreign Military Sales will be offered as a free and open solicitation. That’s right, the Army requirement alone is 14,000 carbines, and someone will be building those weapons, as well as the others we mentioned. Look for the solicitation as early as next quarter. Additionally, the Army currently about 65,000 M4s and they need to be upgraded to the M4A1 standard which includes barrels, trigger control unit, and ambidextrous controls. That too will be an open solicitation. Lots of business out there, without even mentioning the Carbine Competition. Exciting stuff.

[buglerbilly]

Upgrade Kits for M4 Come In 2011

(Source: US Army; dated Oct. 15, web-posted Oct 16, 2010)

WASHINGTON (Army News Service, Oct. 15, 2010) -- The Army expects to field the new sniper rifle, the XM2010, by January. And conversion kits for the M4 rifle will come next year.

A panel of program managers from Program Executive Office Soldier met Oct. 14 at the Pentagon to discuss the status of several programs in the PEO's portfolio. Included in the discussion was the status of the new sniper rifle, development of the Operation Enduring Freedom Camouflage Pattern uniform for use in Afghanistan, Mounted Soldier System development, and the improvement program for the M4 carbine.

Col. Douglas Tamilio, program manager for Soldier Weapons, said the Army will do a request for proposal in the next three or four months to complete the Army's acquisition objective for M4 rifles. That RFP will include more than 14,000 M4A1 rifles -- an improvement over the M4 Soldiers currently use.

"What the M4A1 gives our Soldiers is a heavy barrel and fully automatic -- that's what the field is asking for," Tamilio said. The M4A1 also features ambidextrous controls.

The Army already has a contract with Colt to produce the rifles. The second contract, in the next fiscal quarter, will help the Army complete its AAO and will include additional rifles for both foreign military sales and to meet other Army requirements. Tamilio also said the Army will work a contract to procure some 65,000 kits in FY 2011 to convert M4s already in the field to the M4A1.

Other phases of M4 improvement involve a better bolt and rail.

"I think we can get significant increases in reliability by looking at some new enhancements to bolts," Tamilio said. "Because a lot of companies have shown some bolts over the last year or so that have got, we think, improvement. We're going to ask industry to give us their best."

Tamilio also said fielding of the new sniper rifle, called the XM2010 -- the name is a departure from the Army's formally two- or three- digit weapon naming scheme -- has come quickly.

"In less than a year we're going to be fielding a piece of equipment that is going to add to the lethality of our Soldiers in the field," he said. The XM2010 is an improvement on the M24 sniper rifle system. A contract for production of the system was recently awarded to manufacturer Remington. Tamilio said it's expected fielding will happen in January.

The new rifle features a suppressor to allow Soldiers to fire the weapon in a suppressed environment and to also reduce muzzle flash. Also included is a fluted, free-floating barrel to give Soldiers more accuracy and heat dissipation. The weapon also sits on an improved bipod, Tamilio said, and features a modular rail system.

"(You can) screw a 1913 rail adaptor anywhere on here," Tamilio said. The system is unique in that it allows Soldiers to install a laser aiming device, for instance, and run the cord for that device inside the rail so they can install a activation button.

The included scope also features a reticle that will adjust based on the scope's zoom factor to maintain accuracy, is magazine-fed, has a 1,200 meter range, and a fully adjustable and collapsible butt stock.

"The key behind this weapons system -- the developments and improvements were built on what the snipers asked for," Tamilio said.

Col. William Cole, program manager for Soldier Protection and Individual Equipment, said the Army is focused on a world-wide solution for Soldier uniforms -- an Army combat uniform available in patterns and colors that allows Soldiers to operate in nearly any environment.

Phase four of Army uniform development calls for three uniform patterns of similar geometry but different colors that allow Soldiers to operate in a desert environment, a woodland environment, and in a "transitional" environment in between those two.

Additionally, the Army is looking for a fourth color set that compliments all three of those pallets that can be used for organizational clothing and equipment such as modular lightweight load-carrying equipment, rucksacks and the improved outer tactical vest. Those kinds of issued clothing are more durable and more expensive. Unlike a Soldier's ACU, the Army would like to be able to reissue OCIE.

"We can't afford to keep replacing OCIE every time we send Soldiers to a different part of the world," Cole said.

The colonel said that the new patterns will be based on science, including both photo simulation and field testing, as well as efforts to determine such things as how close an observer must be before seeing a Soldier wearing the patterns. Also a factor will be time to detection -- at a given distance how long does it take for an observer to see a Soldier in the patterns.

"It won't be a fashion show or a beauty contest," Cole said. "It's going to be real objective data, measurable data, that we can replicate."

Currently, the Army is focused on outfitting Soldiers in Afghanistan with the fire resistant Army combat uniform in the new Operation Enduring Freedom combat pattern, or OCP. That pattern was specially designed for the unique requirements of that theater.

It's expected by December all the uniforms that are needed to outfit Soldiers in Afghanistan will have been distributed, though getting them into the hands of the Soldiers that will wear them could be complicated by the operations tempo there, PEO officials said. Additionally, they said not every Soldier in Afghanistan will actually get the FRACU in OCP, based on the time they will have left in theater.

Col. Will Riggins, project manager for Soldier Warrior, said the Nett Warrior system is now undergoing limited user testing at Fort Riley, Kan. Three different versions of the system, from three competing defense contractors, are being tested by Soldiers there.

The Nett Warrior system is worn on a Soldier's body and will provide "unparalleled situational awareness" to Soldiers on the ground. The system includes a radio, a helmet-mounted display and a hand-held data input device. The wiring for the system is integrated into a protective vest.

With Nett Warrior, Soldiers will be able to see their location, the location of their fellow Soldiers, and the location of known enemies on a moving map.

"This is not something you hang on a Soldier and say go out and fight," said Riggins. "It truly changes the basic methodology of how you fight, how you command and control, how you share information on the battlefield."

Riggins said the Army's Training and Doctrine Command is now in the process of writing doctrine to describe use for the system. He also said he believes development of the Nett Warrior program is where it should be.

"We're still on track, as we have been for a while now, for a milestone C low-rate initial production in March 2011," he said.

Riggins also discussed development of the Mounted Soldier System program. He said the system is in developmental testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., and will move into a limited user test at Fort Bliss, Texas, with the Army Evaluation Task Force in either May or June, followed by an LRIP decision in August or September.

The Mounted Soldier System includes a helmet-mounted-display that can attach Soldiers to up to five video feeds, a cordless communications system and a system to keep Soldiers cool under their uniforms and protective gear.

"The temperature extremes we deal with in Iraq and Afghanistan and in various places around the world where we are deployed are intense," Riggins said. Inside a vehicle, he said, it can get as hot as 120-130 degrees, because of limited air movement and the extra heat generated by electronic equipment.

The cooling system consists of a vest, worn as close to the body as possible, that contains cooling tubes connected to a water chiller and circulator on the vehicle. Riggins said development of the system comes from lessons learned from the Air Warrior system and in terms of "the loss of awareness and capability when you are on extended five- or six- multi-hour missions and how much better Soldiers can perform when their core body temperature is kept at a reasonable level."

Riggins also discussed how such systems can be powered and power options the Army is looking at for other systems. He said lithium ion power in batteries is about "state of the art" and has maxed out the current capability for power density -- the amount of power that can be delivered for a battery's physical size.

"What we haven't done well is shape those batteries so they integrate on a Soldiers form," Riggins said. Now, he said, the Army is looking at shaping batteries to fit the Soldier form. One example is a battery that is shaped like an enhanced small arms protective insert. He said in the IOTV there is room behind the protective plates to insert such a battery.

"It makes a great difference -- it integrates better," Riggins said. "When you put a rucksack on, you don't have that brick pressing on your back."

The ESAPI-shaped battery will be demonstrated at Fort Riley as part of the Nett Warrior LUT. He said because the battery is bigger when it's the size of a plate, it also affects the mission.

"Instead of having an eight- or 12-hour mission time, like we currently have with Nett Warrior, we're looking at one of those ESAPI-sized plates being a 24-hour mission capability -- so great promise there, and more Soldier-friendly at the same time," Riggins said.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

From Soldier Systems...........

C4 Free-Floating Railed Hand Guard System

October 18th, 2010



Centurion Arms LLC recently introduced their new C4 Free-floating Railed Hand Guard System. Available in 7, 9, 10, and 12-inch lengths, each C4 System provides an uninterrupted 12 o’clock mounting rail, featuring limited-rotation quick-detach sling swivel mounting cups on both sides, full Mil-Std-1913 compliance, and is compatible with many brands and types of protective covers. The C4 can be installed onto a standard AR-15/M4 barrel nut without modification, and for added rigidity an optional extended barrel nut is provided with 10 and 12-inch versions. Built-in tabs aid in assembly and prevent twisting of the hand guard under rough handling. The C4 System can be ordered directly from www.centurionarms.com.

[buglerbilly]

Folding Front Sight Bases

October 18th, 2010 | GearPorn Hasty Review Product Announcement Review | Posted by Stickman



Folding Front Sight Bases have been out for years, and for the most part, they have been ignored as the Military stays with the cheaper “fixed” option. While the Army gets ready to examine the next generation of carbines, we figure its worth taking a look at some of the upgrades that are currently available to the M4 and M16s. This installment looks at what the front sight base does, what we are currently using, and what any changes would do.................

Read more (and loads more pics): http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/2010/10/18/folding-front-sight-bases/#more-6504

[buglerbilly]

Via The Firearm Blog..............

FN HAMR

The FN SCAR IAR has been rebranded as the FN Heat Adaptive Modular Rifle (HAMR). This automatic rifle includes the clever IAR feature of firing from a closed bolt (increase accuracy) until it heats up to a certain temperature and transitions to a open bolt configuration (better air flow and cooling).


FN HAMR

From the press release ...


Derived from the innovative FN SCAR™ weapon system, the new FN HAMR is a revolutionary, lightweight, magazine-fed, 5.56x45mm infantry weapon that enhances the automatic rifleman's maneuverability and displacement speed while still providing the ability to suppress or destroy both area targets and point targets in today’s fluid battle space. In addition, the visual profile and the firing signature of the FN HAMR are virtually identical to that of the standard infantry rifle, thus reducing the counter-fire threat from enemy forces.

The high-tech FN HAMR platform is a unique, highly adaptable, fully-modular selective fire weapon system that bridges the gap between an individual battle rifle and a squad automatic light machine gun in one compact package. For enhanced accuracy and greater first-round reliability, the magazine-fed FN HAMR initially fires from the closed bolt in either semi-automatic or full-automatic modes. For added safety during sustained fire situations, the FN HAMR automatically transitions into open-bolt operation in both semi-automatic and full-automatic modes before reaching the cook-off temperature of the chambered cartridge. Once the chamber temperature has dropped to a safe level, the FN HAMR automatically transitions back to closed-bolt mode. These transitions between closed-bolt and open-bolt modes are thermally regulated by the FN HAMR and occur without any manual intervention by the operator.


FN HAMR

The rifle weights 11.2 lbs (Including Grip Pod) and has a 650 rpm firing rate. FN claim 1 MOA accuracy when firing from a closed bolt. The company only announced a 5.56mm NATO version (same as IAR).

[buglerbilly]

Source: REMOV via The Firearm Blog............

MSBS-5,56 (Modulowy System Broni Strzeleckiej kalibru 5,56 mm)

The latest prototypes of the future polish service weapon, the MSBS-5,56 (Modulowy System Broni Strzeleckiej kalibru 5,56 mm), are looking very nifty.



The MSBS-5,56 family is being developed by Radom's Fabryka Broni Lucznik and the Military University of Technology (WAT). The core component of the family is a common upper receiver. Components will be able to be added or removed in order to turn it into a carbine, assault rifle, designated sniper rifle or light machine gun. What differentiates it from the latest generation assault rifles such as the FN SCAR, Bushmaster ACR and Beretta ARX is that it can be configured in either a traditional or bullpup configuration.







Not pictured is the GPBO-40 underbarrel and GSBO-40 stand-alone grenade launchers which are being developed alongside the MSBS.

These are the GL's mentioned.............the left is the stand-alone GL and the right one the under-barrel

[buglerbilly]

Via the Firearm Blog, more info on the new G36 variant............


The G36K IdZ

Infanterist der Zukunft (IdZ) is the German Future Solider program. The program's modernized carbine is the G36K IdZ.


Infanterist der Zukunft
Infanterist der Zukunft im Gelände.©Bundeswehr/Rott

Photos from official Bundeswehr Flickr

Along with the previous G36K accessories it also features ...

Low profile upper picatinny rail with integrated BUIS.
XM8 style enlarged magazine release with drop-free capability.
XM8 style bolt release inside the trigger guard.
Flash hider for use with B&T suppressors.
New stock that is collapsible, foldable and has an adjustable cheek riser.



On a side note, the German Army Special Forces (KSK) and Military Police (Feldjaeger) will be holding a competition for a new carbine that feed from M16/AR-15 magazines. According to REMOV, next year H&K will introduce a new magazine well for the G36 that accepts M16 magazines as well as a translucent M16 magazine.

A big thank you to Kratisto providing the information in this blog post.

[buglerbilly]

Nice product video from FNH USA.........via the Firearm Blog................nice shots of HAMR and SCAR plus some on the FNP-45 pistol and the rest of their Military gear..........



An aquaintance in the USA has recently bought the FNP-45 and raved about the accuracy when firing straight from the box..........

[buglerbilly]

From the Firearm Blog...........

FN HAMR at AUSA

A reader emailed me this cool photo of the FN HAMR, with Beta C-Mag, in all its glory. Apparently, the rifle operated in open-bolt mode in both semi and full auto if the temperature is to hot. Interesting.



LordStickMax, also made a video showing many of the guns, including the HAMR, and other military weaponary that was on display at the show.



If anyone else has photos from the show, please pass them onto me.

[buglerbilly]

Infantry Automatic Rifle ‘Could’ Replace all SAWs

by christian on November 9, 2010



Incoming Marine Corps Commandant Jim Amos said during a “Town Hall” meeting at Quantico that he was so impressed with the M-27 Infantry Automatic Rifle that the highly accurate machine carbine could mean the demise of the M-249 Squad Automatic Weapon.


I went out to Weapons and Training Battalion and I fired the [IAR] … and this thing could — notice I didn’t say ‘would’ — could replace the SAW. And it weighs half as much.

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/2010/11/infantry-automatic-rifle-could-replace-all-saws.html#comments#ixzz14pm6kiDI

[CaptainCleanoff]

I really can't see how going from a belt fed light machine gun to a magazine fed assault rifle is a good thing. Am I missing something?

Sure, weight is reduced, but wouldn't over all firepower be reduced also?

Why not take a look at that M240 upgrade (weight reduction) and apply it too the M249 if weight is such an issue?

This seems more like a step backwards than forwards. Please correct me if I'm wrong...

[Gubler, A.]

My opinion has been expressed strongly earlier on that I think this is a positive move. Having to change six magazines for every belt (Minimi) is not such a laborious imposition as many may think. Much, much easier to change a magazine than a belt. I can still remember the first time I tried to load a fresh belt… Also the rother benefits come into play and squad machineguns aren’t usually called upon to provide sustained 200 rounds out in one go moments. As another point perhaps we should note that many more bad guys have been killed by magazine feed Bren guns that the Minimi could ever hope to achieve.

[buglerbilly]

To me it only works IF they bring in the option of 50-100 round drum/double-drum magazines so that you at least have the option of sustained fire............the Brits tried the LSW route (with standard mags) with the SA80 family and have now gone to the Para-minimi for the sustained role. The Brits are going the Titanium route for the MAG's at least (NOT the same as the US Army titanium efforts in parallel)..........

By the way, the Bren was a ferkin BITCH of a gun to hump around the place altho it may have been interesting to have seen how the much-later, STONER 63A version in 5.56mm, compared.

Thinking about Afghanistan, it may well be that 7.62mm rifles in the squad serve a better purpose for THAT environment in most cases?

[Raven22]

Having to change six magazines for every belt (Minimi) is not such a laborious imposition as many may think. Much, much easier to change a magazine than a belt. I can still remember the first time I tried to load a fresh belt…

It depends what you are doing. If you are lying prone changing the belt is often easier than changing a mag - just clip the first round of the new belt to the last round of the old one and keep shooting. You don't have to move the weapon or take it out of the shoulder unlike changing the magazine on a rifle. You don't have to worry about putting the empty mag back into your webbing either. If you are firing from anything other than prone though magazines are much easier of course. For mine, a magazine fed rifle can't replace all the roles of a belt-fed LSW like the Minimi. If you decide you don't need a weapon able to perform all the roles of the Minimi though, and leave other weapons able to provide the large volumes of fire, then I suppose it can work. I wouldn't want to be part of the Marine squad that has to fire and move with only magazine fed rifles for fire support though. When most other Western Armies are returning 7.62mm LSWs to the section, taking away belt-fed weapons to be replaced by rifles does seem very strange though.


To me it only works IF they bring in the option of 50-100 round drum/double-drum magazines so that you at least have the option of sustained fire

Where do you put them in your webbing though?

[buglerbilly]

One option...........means nothing that BETA-C mags are used as the example here...............




The Single and double Beta-C Ergopaks were created to address numerous needs of our customers. These shoulder pouches are available in both a single pouch and double pouch unit. The Ergopak is built to wear like a shoulder bag or bandoleer, yet is designed to keep the pouch as close to the body as possible. This design is meant to minimize flop of the unit during movement like running, climbing, or other strenuous maneuvers. These units also feature our full lid protection design to completely protect your expensive Beta-C magazines or other items. The lids secure with both side release and Velcro closures. The double Ergopak has all the same features, but is designed with two separate pouches to prevent excess rattle or damage to your items, and to keep individual pouch contents secure. The Ergopaks feature a fully adjustable and lightly padded shoulder strap to minimize bulk. The shoulder straps also feature a quick ditch design to remove it from the body quickly if needed. Both Ergopak side panels feature metal D-rings for attaching flashlights, keys, ID badges, or anything else that needs to be kept handy. These are built with the minimalist in mind, and the design is handy for those that need only a small tactical load consisting of Beta magazines.

...........otherwise you use the expanded (in size) "standard" webbing pouches and locate them where you prefer.

[Raven22]

My point is that C-mags take an inordinate amount of space to store, compared to linked rounds or normal double stack magazines. You can easily fit 400 rounds of 5.56mm link in the standard Minimi pouch - you could fit half a C-mag in the same size pouch. Its a valid concern.

[Gubler, A.]

What about that backpack belt holder? If it holds 550 rounds of 7.62 it should hold 1,100 5.56. Is that a big enough continuous belt for people?

[Raven22]

It would work fine right up until you get a trapped belt after 50 rounds. I'd like to see to the stoppage drill for that.

[buglerbilly]

My point is that C-mags take an inordinate amount of space to store, compared to linked rounds or normal double stack magazines. You can easily fit 400 rounds of 5.56mm link in the standard Minimi pouch - you could fit half a C-mag in the same size pouch. Its a valid concern.

Absolutely and I don't claim an easy answer BUT then again I wouldn't go the route of IAR/LSW mag fed in all cases............

[Gubler, A.]

It would work fine right up until you get a trapped belt after 50 rounds. I'd like to see to the stoppage drill for that.

Yeah its gotta be pretty tough stuff to avoid the belt getting stuck in there, plus how good is a Minimi at belt pulling? Six times the weight of belt to pull than a normal arrangement.

[Raven22]

Minimis get trapped belts all the time as it is, especially with the 200 round magazine (which is why no one uses it). I only ever used one 100 round magazine, and just topped up with loose 50 and 100 round belts as required. As I said, you can get 400 rounds into a Minimi pouch if you stack them vertically, which is a whole lot easier that trying to fit extra collapsible magazines in your webbing. I carried 2000 rounds just in my webbing once when I was fire support for an attack, which lead to a fun morning and a broken Minimi.

[Gubler, A.]

Minimis get trapped belts all the time as it is, especially with the 200 round magazine (which is why no one uses it).

This is what happens when you don’t take the full lead from the movies. The backpack belt carrier is no good without a powered linkless feed! Screw belt feed. The >1,000 rounds of 5.56mm in the backpack are belted and feed out to the weapon in the chute where an electrically powered belt puller and delinker is fitted into the magazine of your LMG of choice. Just like in a Minigun and the infamous handheld XM214 Gatling gun of Hollywood fame. Because the ammo is supplied delinked to the weapon you might have to use the Ultimax LMG if you’re not game for the full blown Minigun.

[Raven22]

The backpack belt carrier is no good without a powered linkless feed

I think you'll find its just no good full stop.

[Gubler, A.]

I think you'll find its just no good full stop.

Well clearly you're no goddamn SEXUAL TYRANNOSAURUS

[Raven22]

Well, yes, I can confirm that I am not a sexual Tyrannosaurus...

[Gubler, A.]

Well, yes, I can confirm that I am not a sexual Tyrannosaurus...

Well it must suck being you, look what you're missing out on:

[Raven22]

Actually, if a 'Sexual Tyrannosaurus' is someone who wields a mini-gun, than I think I am one now. I bought the new Call of Duty today, and just finished a level that saw me destroy a Russian Gulag with a mini-gun. Unfortunately there were no bad '80s action movie one liners or mustaches in sight though.

[ARH v.3.1]

Actually, if a 'Sexual Tyrannosaurus' is someone who wields a mini-gun, than I think I am one now. I bought the new Call of Duty today, and just finished a level that saw me destroy a Russian Gulag with a mini-gun. Unfortunately there were no bad '80s action movie one liners or mustaches in sight though.

What's your Steam user name?

If you ever find youself being cussed out online by someone called f-Bomb, it was me.:gunner

[Raven22]

I play on PS3. More fun on a 50" screen with surround sound.

[CaptainCleanoff]

Raven22, what would be your preference then?

The IAR with it's magazines or the Minimi/249 with it's ammo belt?

I gather carry weight is an issue with the heavier Minimi and the 100 rounds along with it, not too mention the other few hundred on your person, but that would be similar with IAR anyway. But would it's belt fed and more sustainable rate of fire, given it has 100 rounds ready to go, be better than having 30 rounds in a magazine?

I gather both systems have their pros and cons, from an Australian Army point of view, which would be the prefered system/doctrine? Wasn't the Mk48 being considered? Would it be a replacement for the Minimi or a supplement?

And yeah, Call of Duty Black Ops is good fun so far. :)

[buglerbilly]

Via the Vuurwapen Blog...........

November 16, 2010

FN SCAR Operator’s Manual

FN SCAR Manual – Everything you need to know to operate the magical weapons “family” that is the FN SCAR-L, SCAR-H, and EGLM..............

http://87gn.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/scarmanual.pdf

[buglerbilly]

Marines Unsure of New Rifle Plan

November 18, 2010

Military.com|by Christian Lowe



The general in charge of training and equipping Marines for the future fight said Nov. 16 that it is still unclear how infantry units will need to adjust to replace their light machine guns with the service's new automatic rifle.

Lt. Gen. George Flynn, who heads the Marine Corps Combat Development Command in Quantico, told reporters at a Washington, D.C. breakfast that the service plans to finish outfitting five battalions with the new M-27 Infantry Automatic Rifle next month and then will observe how those Marines use it on deployment before changing the organization, training, and tactics of infantry units around the new weapon.

But Flynn pushed back at critics of the M-27, saying the improved accuracy of the Heckler and Koch-made automatic rifle makes up for a lower rate of fire compared to the M-249 Squad Automatic Weapon it's being fielded to replace.

"The initial feedback was that the IAR performed pretty well," Flynn said of early evaluations of the M-27. "Accuracy has a suppressive power all by itself."

The introduction of the M-27 is a return to the roots of the Marine infantry squad, Flynn argued, which featured an "automatic rifleman" that eventually evolved into a light machine gunner with the introduction of the SAW in the 1980s.

The Corps' adoption of the IAR has been fraught with controversy, with critics arguing the limited firepower of an M-27 -- which shoots a 30-round magazine -- would leave Marines vulnerable. The lead-spitting power of the M-249 and its 200-round drum helps keep bad guys in place while grunts maneuver in for the kill, skeptics argued.

In March interview with Military.com, then Commandant Gen. James Conway cast doubt on the utility of the IAR, saying the service had to wait and see whether it should be adopted. But field tests performed in Twentynine Palms, Calif., last summer turned skeptics into converts.

At a recent "town hall" meeting at Quantico, incoming Commandant Gen. Jim Amos raved about the M-27, saying it's in the running to replace all SAWs in the inventory.

"I fired the ... and this thing could -- notice I didn't say 'would' -- could replace the SAW," Amos said. "Any of you grunts in here who have not fired that weapon, you need to fire that weapon."

"Fighter pilot old man here fired it and I put it in about [six inches] at 500 yards," Amos added. "It's an incredible weapon."

Flynn said the plan is to outfit infantry companies with both the IAR and the SAW and leave it to the discretion of commanders on how their grunts are outfitted.

"We'll still leave the light machine gun in the company. But they won't be there in the same numbers," Flynn explained.

The Corps says that the 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines; 1st Battalion, 9th Marines; 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st LAR and 1st Battalion, 25th Marines will get the initial fielding of about 450 M-27s for real-world testing on deployments. Corps planners will then decide what the best mix of IARs will be and how best to train and use them.

"We're going to be anxious to see what the feedback is from when the battalions actually take it out on deployment," Flynn said.

[I]© Copyright 2010 Military.com. All rights reserved.

[buglerbilly]

Want a larger calibre for the M16/M4 type assault rifle..............Snap the Beowulf .50 Cal receiver on an AR-15 M16 platform, and watch the large .50 caliber ammunition make mincemeat out of motor vehicles!



Bob Owens of Bob's Gun Counter blog http://guncounter.bob-owens.com fires the Templar Custom Broadsword multi-caliber carbine system, while it is outfitted with the .50 Beowulf barrel.

[buglerbilly]

Army Invites Carbine Competitors to Test Shoot

by christian on November 30, 2010



In an announcement released Nov. 29 on the Federal Business Opportunities Web site, the Army is asking all rifle makers who want to compete in the upcoming Improved Carbine search to test their weapons on the services potent new M855A1 cartridge and to make sure their guns can work with the M28 shotgun and M320 grenade launcher attached.

According to Lt. Col. Chris Lehner, the program manager for individual weapons, the new round is only available for government purchase, so in the interest of fairness to all those companies who have 5.56 designs, the service wanted to make sure all the candidates could fire the new round without encountering serious problems.

The first iteration of Familiarization firing will be on a 25yd and 300yd range (one or more days on each range). A third, 100m indoor range, may be available (availability pending the final count of vendors participating)...........edited................... .

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz16oAUs5S3

[buglerbilly]

From the Firearm Blog.........the link to the French Army report on AUSA 2010 is well worth a visit too, some REAL interesting stuff there.............

FN SCAR PDW

The French Defense Ministry has posted an interesting article on their website about new products at the US Army's AUSA '10 expo. Notably, they mention a new PDW version for the SCAR. It has a very short barrel (10"?) and an H&K-style retractable stock. I like it!

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/ema/sitta/a-la-une/ausa-2010-article


FN SCAR PDW

Even if you don't understand the French, I recommend taking a look at the article. It has lots of great photos.

[buglerbilly]

Inside the M4A1 Purchase and Upgrade Program

by christian on December 1, 2010



I got a note from a Kit Up! reader on Monday alerting me to the release of PEO Soldier’s 2011 program almanac and wondering why the Army said on page 243 that even though it had about 500,000 M4s in the inventory, only about 100,000 were part of the upgrade program.

Well, according to Lt. Col. Chris Lehner — the PM for individual weapons — the deal is this:

There are about 12,000 new M4s left on the contract with Colt (which expired back in ’08 when the technical data package was released — in other words, when the patent expired). Lehner said he’d asked Colt to make those 12k guns in the M4A1 configuration (heavier barrel, full auto, ambidextrous controls) since the switch was a minimal impact to the manufacturing process. Those guns are being produced and fielded now.

Then there are about 24,000 new full-up weapons that are funded for fiscal 2011. Those weapons will be produced in the M4A1 configuration. But the big difference is that now that production will be competed. In other words, Colt’s monopoly is over on M4 production.


Right now we are firming up the solicitation for that … for a full and open competition. The interesting thing [with this order] is that that’s just what the Army needs. So it could be many multiples of 24,000 if you think of foreign military sales, other services and other agencies … so it’s a foot in the door for much more business than the 24,000…

Then, the Army has been given money in its FY ’11 budget to upgrade about 65,000 existing M4s to the M4A1.


We’ll compete the barrel, we’ll compete the trigger mechanism and we’ll compete the fire control assembly.

But the reason why the Army isn’t doing all 500,000 is schedule and funding.

Our acquisition strategy for these improvements is to make improvements to the whole fleet. That’s what’s been accepted by Army leadership. … You make improvements as funding and the budget allows you to do...........edited............


Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz16tpu6DDl

[Raven22]

Speaking of all things 'black rifle', rumour has it that the HK-417 will soon be seen the in the hands of the SOTG and MTF in Afghanistan, with the same weapon to be selected to fulfill the DMR requirement for the MSS sharpshooter.

[buglerbilly]

Speaking of all things 'black rifle', rumour has it that the HK-417 will soon be seen the in the hands of the SOTG and MTF in Afghanistan, with the same weapon to be selected to fulfill the DMR requirement for the MSS sharpshooter.

What did they test for that?

[buglerbilly]

Ultar-short barrel SCAR in 5.56mm, new shots..........from M4carbine.net.........

[buglerbilly]

Following on from the Chinese clones/copies thread in the Air Warfare section, take a look at this...........they haven't even bothered to mask or change anything.............pics and some details via the Firearm Blog

Vietnamese Forces with what is presumed to be NORINCO copies of the M16/M4................


Vietnamese Military in Hanoi


Vietnamse ready to perform thier 1000th anniversary march


Vietnamese Marines


They could be captured Colt Commando carbines, but given the condition that appear to be in, I think it is more likely that they have been purchasing Norinco CQ 5.56mm carbines.

And from earlier in the year.............



The caption of the above photo, translated from Spanish:


Soldiers of the Joint Detachment of Empleo Inmediato (DECEI) marching past with carbines Norinco CQ-M4 of 5.56 mm Are copies of Colt M-4A1 made in China and equipped with viewfinders of not known model. The DECEI depends on the Commando of Special Troops of the Army.



According to Wikipedia:


This variant introduced in the year 2006 in several Defense expos worldwide, including the MILIPOL, is a copy of the American M4A1 assault carbine. It features a telescoping stock, a removable carrying handle mounted on a Picatinny rail, and a 368,3 millimetres (14,5 inches) barrel. The CQ Type A carbine variant is claimed to be able to stabilize both M193 “Ball” and SS-109/M-885 variants of the 5.56 mm cartridge, as would be expected from a rifle with a 1:9 barrel rifling twist. It will quickly accept the installation of grenade launchers due to the quick attachment/detachment handguard design and to the step-cut barrel.

[buglerbilly]

First Look: The H&K 416C

by christian on January 17, 2011



This is the first exclusive look at a new carbine from H&K which takes the 416 platform popular with the spec ops community and turns it into a sub-compact rifle.

Designed to meet a requirement for British special forces, the 416C is more than simply an AR with a 10 inch barrel, says Dale Bohner, H&K’s government sales director. The rifle also has a whole new MP5-style collapsable stock and a shortened buffer to make it just as powerful as a full-sized 416 but in a truly bantam package.

We’ll have some video posted on this shortly but I just wanted to get this up now for a first look.

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz1BLPYIzaK

SHOT Video: H&K 416C

by christian on January 17, 2011

In a Kit Up! exclusive, H&K Director for Government Sales Dale Bohner shows us the new subcompact H&K-416C — a weapon designed for the British special forces and being marketed to meet emerging requirements for US special ops units.

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz1BLQ2zwAt

[buglerbilly]

First Look: The Colt Piston M4 and new Stock

by christian on January 17, 2011



Kit Up! got to take a test drive of the Colt gas piston M4 variant at the SHOT show media day that also had the company’s newly designed collapsible folding stock.

A la the SCAR stock, this Colt variant folds over and the buttstock pivots to align with the receiver to slicken out the profile for jumpers, vehicle operators and aviators. The stock has plenty of adjustments and shoots just as well as the current collapsible version.

Also, the rifle fires basically the same as a gas M4 as far as this desk jockey is concerned. So if the Army calls for a piston M4, Colt’s got a system ready that works.

I did shoot some video of the stock that I’ll post as soon as I can, but I just wanted to push the basic gouge now so you can take a look.

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz1BLQNFUls

SHOT Video: Colt Gas Piston M4 with New Folding Stock

by christian on January 17, 2011

Colt shows off its gas piston version of the M4 tricked out with a new folding and collapsible stock for vehicle crews, airborne troops and aviators.

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz1BLQdVxe7

[Deks]

Also, the rifle fires basically the same as a gas M4 as far as this desk jockey is concerned. So if the Army calls for a piston M4, Colt’s got a system ready that works.


And they're what, dead last to produce one?

[buglerbilly]

Better image of the new HK 416C...............

[Deks]

That thing's fucking adorable, if one can use such a turn of phrase for a compact assault rifle.

[buglerbilly]

That thing's fucking adorable, if one can use such a turn of phrase for a compact assault rifle.

Errrmmmm no I don't think you should or can.............. :rofl :rofl

[buglerbilly]

Daniel Defense Working on Improved Carbine

by christian on January 19, 2011



An official from Daniel Defense, makers of lightweight barrels, rails and the DDM4 (pictured above) carbine variant, said Tuesday they plan to offer a rifle for the Army’s improved carbine competition.

Sales Manager Patrick Kisgen was cautious about how much to reveal, but he said the company is in final negotiations with another small arms accessory maker and a larger “well-known” arms manufacturer to solidify a partnership for the development of the carbine.

This sounds a lot like what Magpul did with its Masada design: teaming with small arms behemoths Remington (for the military version) and Bushmaster (for the civilian version) to actually build what became the Adaptive Combat Rifle.

It’s interesting from a business perspective and jibes with what I heard Armalite president Mark Westrom say over lunch at the Media Day, when he argued that there are supply chain issues for small gun makers who want to build like the big boys. The small companies just cant get the materials on the same scale the larger ones, so it will either force them to go out of business, or team up like Daniel Defense plans to do.

More on the subject later, but this is the same issue Magpul is facing in the development and manufacturing of its Massoud 7.62×51 rifle.

Kisgen was cagey about revealing any specifics of the design, but he did say it would be on 5.56 only and would be designed and optimized to more effectively fire the new M855A1 round. You’ll remember that we posted a story announcing the PEO Soldier range day at HP White allowing manufacturers to test fire their rifles with the M855A1 round which has a higher velocity and is optimized for the shorter barreled M4.

Kisgen was adamant that his company would not play around with the caliber conversion trickery, saying sticking with the 5.56 round was the way to go.

By the way, I heard more and more of that at this year’s show…whereas last year gun makers were falling all over themselves to show how they could convert from a 5.56 to a 7.62 to a 6.8 to an electromagnetic neutron blaster, this year gunmakers seem to be backing off the multi-caliber bandwagon.

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/2011/01/daniel-defense-working-on-improved-carbine.html#ixzz1BVQCklUb

[buglerbilly]

LWRC Shows Off its Ultra-Compact Personal Weapon

by christian on January 19, 2011



Kit Up! spoke with LWRC’s Jeffrey Clemmer on the floor of SHOT Show today and spied an intriguing looking weapon propped up in the corner of its display.

(Please Note: The photo above has been rotated to orient it better for viewing on the blog)

Turns out the weapon was a competitor to the H&K 416C for the British SAS requirement for a 5.56 carbine less than 22 inches in overall length (when the stock is retracted). Dubbed the Ultra-Compact Individual Weapon, the LWRC rifle has some refinements that Clemmer says might just eek out a victory for the Cambridge, MD-based gunmaker.

He said the rifle is intended to be used by British special forces armored vehicle drivers and helicopter pilots as well as for operators requiring a concealable firearm with a carbine punch.

And just an FYI on some of the comments relating to this thread regarding lethality of the rifle cartridge from super short barrels. Clemmer said the M855A1 ball round now standard in the US Army has changed the game when it comes to lethality in short-barreled rifles. So much so that when I asked him about which caliber LWRC plans to offer in an improved carbine for the Army, Clemmer said it would definitely be in 5.56 instead of the 6.8 his company is famous for. It’s another case for the Ultra-Compact Individual Weapon instead of the 9mm MP5, he added.

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz1BXHw1545

[buglerbilly]

From SHOT Show 2011 via the Firearm Blog and Shooting Illustrated............very clever little design!

ADCOR Defense B.E.A.R.



Last week I wrote about the upcoming ADCOR Defense BEAR. Shooting Illustrated has uploaded a very comprehensive video showing how the system works. One interesting feature is that the gas block is attached to the rail, rather than the barrel, and pulls in gas through a pipe-like shim.

[buglerbilly]

VIDEO: Lack of Full Auto on M4s Cost Lives

by christian on January 27, 2011



I had the opportunity to meet the President of ArmaLite, Inc. — a company recognized as the original inventor of the AR-15/M16 rifle — during the Range Day at SHOT Show this month.

Mark Westrom took over ArmaLite back in the early 1990s, taking the helm of a company in crisis and facing the draconian strictures of the assault weapons ban. He’s taken the company into the 21st Century with a gusto, and he’s never shied away from speaking his mind on carbine development and innovation (or lack thereof). Westrom was an Army Ordnance Officer in the ’70s and a competitive rifle and pistol shooter for the Army and Reserve.

After he walked me through the advantages of his SPR Mod.1, we chatted about the Army M4 upgrade program and some of the whistles and bells other companies were pushing the Army to adopt.

In an interview with Small Arms Defense Journal in 2009, Westrom was bearish on the Army’s new carbine competition.


The political snarl has become so deep that the Army is soliciting a new carbine to take a look at everything available. The solicitation is being stimulated by commercial and political pressures, and I doubt if we’ll see anything new. It’ll be too expensive. I’m going to make a prediction. The prediction is that while one rifle or another may have a feature that is liked, in the end a few minor changes will be made to the M16 and M4 system, and that’ll be as far as it goes.

None of the new firearms being proposed does what the M16 did in its day. The M16 led to a new marksmanship doctrine and provided a substantially new combat capability. The M16 provided an intense, close-in fighting capability. Merely changing from one compact system to another compact system doesn’t give you any fundamental change. The weapons systems being considered only offer a suspect or theoretical difference in performance. The reliability of the M16 when in good condition—cleaned and lubed—is so high, I don’t believe that it’s worth the money to change to a new weapons system. You would have to see a substantial improvement in performance, and the performance with the M16 and M4 is very good.

................EDITED............see link for video............

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz1CI15zdMG

[buglerbilly]

Army Draft RFP for Improved Carbine

by christian on January 31, 2011



The Army has moved one step closer to replacing the current M4 carbine by releasing an initial request for proposals from industry for a so-called “improved carbine.”

There are no specifics on caliber, performance or configuration except that the service wants a rifle that can engage…


…enemy combatants with a highly reliable weapon system throughout the range of military operations and environments.

The rifle will have to be able to use current accessories, like IR pointers, lasers and grips and optics and leverage “commercial technology advancements” in carbine manufacture and design.

And here’s the kicker:


The IC requirements support future system enhancements for accuracy, lethality, reliability, signature suppression, ammunition improvements, maintenance and other weapon/accessory technologies.

So this addresses the concerns over fouling and lethality that have been pushed by some lawmakers in Congress. It’s also interesting to see the “signature suppression” requirement in there.

The Army says it will hold an industry day in March to brief gun makers on the specifics of the requirement and timeline.

(Thanks to FormerDirtDart for the gouge)

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz1CfEAcZUc

[buglerbilly]

Army announces carbine competition details

By Lance M. Bacon - Staff writer

Posted : Monday Jan 31, 2011 11:35:13 EST


Sgt. Matthew C. Moeller / Army A soldier with 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division, fires an M4 during a gun battle with insurgent forces in Barge Matal, Afghanistan on July 12, 2010.

The Army has outlined the competition that will select the best new carbine — and one that ultimately will face off against the improved M4A1 in a battle to become your next weapon.

The overall schedule of competition, testing, production and fielding is approximately three years to first unit equipped.

A draft solicitation to industry released Monday morning said the down-select will occur in three phases covering two years. The Army will host an industry day in March or April to solicit feedback and answer specific industry questions. The final solicitation will go out in May, and competitors typically have a couple of months to present their submissions.

The weapons will then square off in what officials have described as “extreme and extensive” tests expected to last 12 to 18 months. The Army will fire more than 2 million rounds to produce piles of data. Weapons will be tested to their destruction point and to determine whether they maintain accuracy throughout their life cycle — something the military has not tested before. A weapon typically loses accuracy as it ages.

No caliber restriction has been placed on a new design. It will be at least a 500-meter weapon and have a higher incapacitation percentage. It can have a gas or piston system. Interchangeable barrel sizes and calibers are not required, but many early contenders such as the FNH SCAR and Colt CM901 already incorporate this capability.

As the $30 million carbine competition is conducted, the Army also will move forward with the second half of its “dual path” strategy — an overhaul of the M4. The first phase essentially distributes an improved M4A1, which is notable for its heavier barrel and automatic fire. The heavier barrel reduces warping and erosion, resulting in better performance and longer life. It also allows for a higher sustained rate of fire. The Army also is adding ambidextrous controls.

The second phase will focus on increasing the M4’s effectiveness and accuracy, with emphasis on the bolt, bolt carrier assembly and the forward rail assembly.

The third phase, focusing on the operating system, will begin in about 18 months. The goal is to improve the gas system by allowing less gas and dirt in, or replacing it with a conversion kit.

Once the carbine competition’s winner is determined, the Army chief of staff will determine whether the service should go with the top carbine or the improved M4 as it recapitalizes the force. In an era of diminishing budgets, the winning carbine must hit financial goals as well as it hits targets.

This reality is not lost on the manufacturers. Remington, for example, had four carbines on display at the 2011 SHOT Show in Las Vegas last month. On one side there was an M4A1 and another M4A1 with a few more improvements. On the other side was the Adaptive Combat Rifle and the Modular Gas Piston.

While the ACR is Remington’s prized carbine, the MGP presents an improvement over the M4A1 at a lower cost than the ACR and its fellow competitors, said Jason Schauble, vice president of Remington's Defense Division. The ACR will cost less than the M4, and the MGP will coss “far less,” he said.

An M4 runs about $1,300 per copy.

Schauble said he feels the carbine competition will be “a fair and honest” endeavor, but he is not convinced the winner will become the Army’s weapon of choice. With an eye on diminishing defense dollars, he has shown Remington’s ability to produce the M4A1.

[buglerbilly]

Marine Corps watching Army carbine search

By Dan Lamothe - Staff writer

Posted : Thursday Feb 10, 2011 5:46:45 EST


Lance Cpl. Mary D. LaCombe/Marine Corps
A Marine fires an M4 rifle aboard Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, Calif.

As the Army prepares for a two-year, $30 million competition to identify a possible new carbine, the Marine Corps is watching closely and evaluating what its own future weapons should look like.

Marine officials still plan the service’s infantry weapons around the 5.56mm M16A4 service rifle, but “that doesn’t mean we can’t be getting smart” about other options, said Lt. Col. Mark Brinkman, head of the infantry weapons program at Quantico, Va.-based Marine Corps Systems Command.

“The thought process for us is very similar to what’s going on in the Army,” he said Feb. 1 at the Soldier Technology U.S. conference in Arlington, Va.

The Army released a draft request for proposals for its carbine competition Jan. 31. The desired weapon must “support future system enhancements for accuracy, lethality, reliability, signature suppression, ammunition improvements, maintenance and other weapon/accessory technologies,” the RFP said. No caliber restrictions were set in the document.

The Army intends to issue up to three indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts in a three-phase competition, said Army Col. Douglas Tamilio, project manager for soldier weapons. The Army will assess whether submissions can be mass-produced in the U.S. in the first phase. The second phase calls for the firing of at least 700,000 rounds, with the Army whittling competitors down to three rifles or fewer for a final third phase.

Soldiers will fire 850,000 rounds in phase three, compiling reams of data for the Army. The weapons will be tested to their destruction point to determine whether they maintain accuracy through their entire life cycle — something the military has not tested before.

To win a mass-production contract, the winning company also must exceed the ability of the M4A1 currently fielded in Afghanistan. Army officials have launched an aggressive campaign to enhance the M4A1, with a heavier, more durable barrel; strengthened sight rails; a piston-charged operating system and the ability to fire in full-automatic mode.

“We’re going to say, ‘Here’s weapon X that won the competition,’” Tamilio said, speaking at the same conference. “Is it worth buying it instead of using the M4A1?”

The competition leaves Marine officials playing the waiting game. With its massive size and budget, the Army can afford to test options the Corps cannot. If they like what they see, Marine officials could adopt the solution the Army identifies, at least to replace the Corps’ existing arsenal of M4s.

Nearly all infantry soldiers use M4s, but in the Corps, they are fielded primarily to vehicle operators and other Marines whose jobs render the M16A4 too cumbersome. The trade-off is accuracy and stopping power, of which the M16A4’s longer 20-inch barrel offers more. The M4 has a 14.5-inch barrel, making it difficult for service members to take down targets beyond 200 yards.

Brinkman said the Corps eventually has tough choices to face about its rifles, like whether fielding a new weapon, or a family of new weapons, makes more sense.

Advancements in the weapons industry also may allow the Corps to explore debates it had put aside, like whether it should replace its arsenal of rifles with more powerful 7.62mm rifles. Fielding weapons chambered for larger ammunition has been debated for years, but the Corps hasn’t swapped because the weapon’s larger recoil affects accuracy, Brinkman said. Industry may eventually develop a convincing way to mitigate the recoil and get the Corps’ attention, he said.

[McFriday]

"Lance Cpl. Mary D. LaCombe/Marine Corps A Marine fires an M4 rifle aboard Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, Calif."

I'm not sure I'd be calling this marine "Mary" without some confirmation of identity!!!

Cheers,
Mac

[buglerbilly]

Ya prune! The Lady who took the photo is called "Mary".............look at the edit correction.................:abovelol

[buglerbilly]

Vltor meets the HK416

February 11th, 2011 | Product Announcement | Posted by Stickman



Guys looking to cut weight on their HK416s will find the upcoming Vltor rail to be of interest. While at SHOT, the Vltor crew was nice enough to show us a stack of new items they are working on, and this one caught our eye. Eric Kincel explained that Vltor had a request to develop a lighter rail from a military team using the 416. This rail looks to be part of the CASV family of rails, which means it installs easily, and also comes apart quickly for cleaning underneath. These rails are smooth, and allow users to install rail sections where needed. Anti-rotation tabs are evident in the below pictures for those who were wondering. We did not get any trigger time, but in the limited time we did have, this rail felt good in our hands. It will be interesting to see where this goes, especially with the IAR looming so close.

While the HK416 might be in limited use right now, its always nice to have options.







http://www.vltor.com/

(Its not on their website yet.............)

[buglerbilly]

Army Asks for M4A1 in FY 2012

by christian on February 23, 2011



Putting its money where its mouth is, the Army has requested almost 20,000 M4A1s for fiscal 2012.

We’ve been hearing from PM Soldier Weapons that the Army was going to start buying the full-auto model of the M4, but until the budget docs are written and submitted, the program isn’t formally a go.

The request for $35 million to buy 19,409 of the weapons comes as the Army is also seeking funds to upgrade existing M4s with ambidextrous controls. The M4A1 has a heavier barrel and full-auto functionality.

Interestingly, the budget documents go on to list out the contractors for prior year buys (Colt Defense) but for the FY ’12 buy the manufacturer is listed as “TBD.”

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/2011/02/army-asks-for-m4a1-in-fy-2012.html#ixzz1Epv8A0o4

[McFriday]

Ya prune! The Lady who took the photo is called "Mary".............look at the edit correction.................:abovelol

B,
I looked at the time of the edit too!! I shouldn't be such an avid reader of your posts.

Glad you did it though, I almost switched to de-caf. Bad mental images of servicewomen and sex scandals, damaging stuff for a pure mind.

LOL

Cheers,
Paul

[buglerbilly]

From the NRA website...............

The SCAR Program: Present and Future

The U.S. Special Operations Command is going forward with the MK17 7.62x51 mm NATO SCAR-H program.

By David Crane



On April 14, 2010, FN Herstal (FNH) received notification from the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) Program Executive Office that the FN SCAR (Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle) program achieved the Milestone C phase, authorizing the production and deployment of the following: MK16 5.56x45 mm NATO SCAR-L (SCAR-Light) (Short Barreled Rifle); MK17 7.62x51 mm NATO SCAR-H (SCAR-Heavy); MK20 7.62x51 mm NATO SSR (Sniper Support Rifle); and 40x46 mm MK13 Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module (EGLM). According to an Aug. 16, 2010, FNH USA press release, SOCOM approved the SCAR systems for full-rate production on July 30, 2010. This created some confusion at the time, however, since SOCOM quickly let it be known that it would not be purchasing the MK16.

The approval on the rest of the SCAR systems was a long time coming, considering that SOCOM had awarded FNH the SCAR development contract in November 2004. The program was actually conceived in 2002, and SOCOM drafted the Joint Operational Requirements Document (JORD). The original objective of the SCAR program was to develop a modular, multi-caliber platform for Special Operations Forces (SOF). Six years later and after spending $19 million on research, development and procurement, SOCOM is on the verge of achieving this end. SOCOM and FNH are presently developing the FN MK17 SCAR-H “common receiver,” which takes the MK17 to the next level of modularity, past its quick-change barrel function. The MK17 common receiver will be capable of accepting a 5.56 mm conversion kit, consisting of a trigger module, bolt, firing pin, magazine and barrel. According to FNH USA’s Marketing Director Combat Rifles & Technical Support Gabe Bailey that the recoil spring and guide remain the same, and there’s no need to change the case deflector.

As of December 2010, FNH has been actively developing the SCAR common receiver platform/system for about the past year and a half, and it has been testing it for roughly the past six to eight months. The common receiver is currently approaching the final phase of government testing. Bailey informed me that they’re looking at fielding the SCAR common receiver system sometime in 2011, most likely around the mid-year mark.

FNH made a wise choice in developing the common receiver, since SOCOM has decided not to purchase the MK16 variant. The reason for this is pretty straightforward: According to SOCOM Public Affairs Officer Maj. Wes Ticer, “The MK16 does not provide enough of a performance advantage over the M4 carbine to justify spending limited SOCOM funds when competing priorities are taken into consideration.” This is a diplomatic way of saying that the MK16, although it is a capable weapon system that offers more than 80 percent parts commonality with, and identical ergonomics to, the MK17, it doesn’t offer any measurable combat-relevant performance or lethality advantage over the M4 carbine. Put another way, there’s nothing a military operator can accomplish tactically or ballistically with a MK16 that he can’t already accomplish just as well with an M4, i.e., putting rounds on target quickly, accurately, and reliably in a fight. Rifle on rifle, the two look pretty evenly matched.

The FN MK17 SCAR-H common-receiver platform is a very different story, however, as its light weight (7.91 pounds in standard configuration with 16-inch barrel), multi-caliber capability, semi-quick-change barrel system, and monolithic upper receiver with integrated quad-rail system provide a new level of usability and mission adaptability/versatility over the M14. This allows the MK17 to “fill an existing capability gap for a 7.62 mm rifle,” wrote Bailey. Right out of the box, the MK17 “adds no more than one m.o.a. over the ammunition at 100 meters; this is really more precision than accuracy. In regards to accuracy, with the MK16 and MK17, it is really tied to other factors, i.e., reliability and barrel life. In basic terms, the MK16 and MK17 had to fire a minimum of 15,000 rounds with a mean-rounds-between-stoppages better than in 2,000. I believe we came in around 1 in 3,600 on both weapons and maintain 70 percent of hits on an e-type target at 300 meters. Of the 15,000 rounds, 50 percent were full-automatic fire and 25 percent were suppressed.”

The MK17 common receiver’s caliber convertibility is arguably one of the most profound threats to the M4’s survival with SOCOM, and potentially with U.S. infantry forces, since it provides long-term production and training cost advantages. Greater production increases absolute cost savings. A single SCAR common receiver can double as an assault rifle/carbine/SBR and battle rifle/carbine/SBR, as opposed to the M4, MK18 MOD 1, M16, MK12 MOD 1 and M14, which are all individual systems, and the AR-type arms and the M14 are completely different platforms. This may be one of the reasons Colt Defense has designed and developed the Colt CM901 7.62x51 mm NATO AR-10 type modular/multi-caliber battle rifle with a “universal” lower receiver, to match the capabilities of the SCAR series.

The MK17’s reception by SOF warfighters has generally been positive. Operators enjoy the rifle’s light weight and adaptability. The only controversial aspect of the system of which I am aware is its reciprocating charging handle, which some military operators find unwieldy. I am not a big fan of reciprocating charging handles either, and I would like to see a non-reciprocating charging handle developed for SCAR.

FNH’s and SOCOM’s goal with the MK20 SSR (Sniper Support Rifle) was originally to give military snipers a one m.o.a. gun that can fire 4,000 rounds between stoppages, fire accurately on full-automatic, and be used as a full-capability battle rifle. However, it would appear that the MK 20 is now a semi-automatic-only rifle with a 45-degree-throw safety/selector lever. The MK20 features a beefed-up barrel attachment system, utilizing more barrel retention and barrel extension screws; an extended receiver for mounting in-line night vision and thermal optics and standard day sniper optics; a modular single-stage/two-stage trigger; a non-folding adjustable precision buttstock; and a thicker, free-floating heavy barrel.

According to FNH, it is to be fielded in May 2011. The MK20 offers more than 60 percent parts commonality with the MK17. Its trigger-pull weight is 4 pounds (+/- 0.5 lbs.) versus the MK16’s and MK17’s 6-pound (+/- 1.5 lbs.) trigger-pull weight. Accuracy is a claimed 0.25 m.o.a. at 100 meters over baseline ammunition. The MK20’s threshold barrel life is a claimed to be 7,000 rounds, but 15,000 rounds is the objective goal, while maintaining a group size under 2.5 m.o.a. SOCOM has deemed the MK20 “Operationally Effective /Operationally Suitable and Sustainable.”

A bit lower down on most people’s SCAR radar is the under-barrel-mounted/stand-alone 40 mm MK13 EGLM (Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module), which replaces the M203. Unlike the M203, the MK13 swivels left and uses new low-impulse 40 mm munitions that allow the operator to engage the enemy out to 800 meters.

In my opinion, the hands-down most interesting and ambitious SCAR variant is the aptly named FN Heat Adaptive Modular Rifle (HAMR), which is FN’s Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR). Where other IARs feature open-bolt, full-automatic/closed-bolt, semi-automatic operation to avoid cook-offs, the HAMR’s thermal regulation system controls the bolt carrier position. The FN HAMR will initially fire from the closed-bolt position in both either semi-automatic or full-automatic. Once the chamber reaches a certain temperature, however, it will transition automatically to open-bolt operation before it reaches its cook-off threshold. Once the chamber’s temperature comes back down below its cook-off threshold, the gun will return to closed-bolt operation. The HAMR hasn’t landed any U.S. military contracts, yet.

SOCOM’s Fiscal Year 2011 budget submission for all SCAR variants is $3 million. According to SOCOM Public Affairs, “SOCOM will use the existing contract with the manufacturer to procure the weapons. SOCOM is in the process of determining the exact quantities of the MK17, MK13 and MK20 variants that will be purchased,” said Maj. Ticer.

[buglerbilly]

Army Wants Hyper Burst in Improved Carbine

by matt-cox on March 10, 2011



Nobody makes this capability in 5.56mm, you almost-certainly wouldn't need it in the right type of 7.62mm round, yet the US Army thinks this can somehow miraculously happen!? Talk about an intent to ferk up a programme...............Metal Storm got a mention in the comments as did G11, with the latter possibly the only Western system to have gotten cloe to or achieved this aim. Needless to say its NOT 5.56mm...........

The Army has a new leap-ahead challenge for gun makers — build an improved carbine that fires so fast it can put two bullets through the same hole.

Small arms companies are already baulking at the “hyper burst” requirement the Army wants as a feature on potential replacements for the M4 carbine. It’s not specifically identified in the draft solicitation the service released in late January, but Col. Doug Tamilio, the head of Project Manager Soldier Weapons told me the Army wants a weapon with hyper burst.

Apparently, putting two bullets through the same hole could potentially penetrate some types of foriegn body armor more effectively and incapacitate a foe more quickly.

Officials from Heckler and Koch, Remington Arms Company, LWRC International, Knight’s Armament Company and others told me that they know of no company in the U.S. that’s has this capability.

Gun makers are describing it with phrases like “That’s a significant requirement.” and “It’s not going to happen.” My favorite is from a Remington official who said “It’s just silly.”

The only company that seems to have it is Izhmach, a Russian arms company that produces the AN94. The AN94 has a burst mode that fires at a rate of 1800 rounds per minute.

The Russians, who are notorious for over-selling their weapons, boast that the AN94 can put a two-round burst through the same bullet hole at 100 meters.

Experts from the small arms community maintain that the AN94, which was fielded to Russian forces in limited numbers in 1994, is not that impressive. Its an extremely complex system that relies on the barrel assembly recoiling reward when the weapon is fired. Those who have fired it say it jams more than it works.

It certainly looks cool on YouTube. Here’s video that seems to be in Russian but shows the AN94 firing a lot.



Matthew Cox, a free-lance, defense writer, can be found at http://www.tacticalwriter.com/

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/2011/03/army-wants-hyper-burst-in-improved-carbine.html#ixzz1GF9Z5xq4

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/2011/03/army-wants-hyper-burst-in-improved-carbine.html#ixzz1GF8evjUd

[buglerbilly]

Obstacles Ahead for M4 Replacement

March 16, 2011

Military.com|by Matthew Cox



Army weapons officials are in for some tough questions from gun makers about to compete for the chance to replace the service's M4 carbine.

In just two weeks, Program Executive Office Soldier will hold an industry day designed to help small-arms companies understand what the Army wants to see in the upcoming and much-anticipated improved carbine competition.

The Army released a draft solicitation Jan. 31 to announce the endeavor, but long-arm manufacturers began preparing for this event more than three years ago when the M4's performance came under scrutiny from Soldiers and lawmakers alike.

Companies are already expressing concern over the guidelines competitors will have to follow to participate.

One issue causing anxiety is the lack of clarity over how the Army will test rifles that can shoot more than one caliber of ammunition.

While a formal solicitation for the competition is scheduled for release in May, the current rules seem to limit companies from entering more than one carbine design.

"If you are a company that has a multiple-caliber weapon, where do you write that into the proposal?" said Jason Schauble, vice president for Remington Arms Company's Global Military Products Division.

Remington makes the Adaptive Combat Rifle, a modular design that allows the user to change calibers from 5.56mm to 6.8mm in minutes by changing the bolt head, barrel and magazine.

Several other gun makers have invested in new carbine designs that can convert from 5.56mm to 7.62x51mm or 7.62x39mm.

Army officials have said many times the competition will be open to all calibers, but it already seems that a priority has been given to service's new M855A1 5.56mm ammunition. The Army recently began fielding the new round that features a lead-free slug and is designed for use in the M4's 14.5-inch barrel.

In addition to the M855A1, the Army will also provide the service's standard 7.62mm ammunition. Gun makers planning to submit weapons with alternative calibers -- such as the 6.8mm SPC or 6.5mm Grendel -- will have to bring their own bullets.

"If you bring another caliber … you have to provide ammo for that weapon," Col. Doug Tamilio, who runs Project Manager Soldier Weapons, said at a recent Pentagon briefing. "And you have to provide the ammo we have in our current fleet. You have to have armor piercing, tracers -- you have to produce all of that."

To Remington and other gun makers, there is no incentive to submit anything but weapons that fire M855A1.

"The reality is I'm not going to spend a lot of time submitting another cartridge," Schauble said.

The competition will be broken up into three phases, take more than two years to complete, and will send about 1.5 million rounds downrange before a winner is selected.

But it's only one half of the Army's plan to improve Soldier weapons. Weapons officials are also conducting a Product Improvement Program to radically upgrade more than 500,000 M4s in service.

The effort will look to improve the M4's forward rail, bolt and bolt carrier assembly in one phase and then evaluate commercially available operating systems -- such as gas piston design -- against the M4's current, direct-gas impingent system in a separate phase.

The piecemeal approach also has gun makers scratching their heads.

"You have to look at everything together," said Darren Mellers, executive vice president for LWRC International, a company that specializes in M4-style carbine designs.

Mellers, and others in the small-arms industry, maintain that a weapon's components such as the bolt, trigger group and operating system have to be designed to work together.

Right now, there are multiple M4-style upper receivers on the market that offer improved performance, Mellers said.

"You can get 90 percent of the upgrades by dropping in an upper receiver," he said.

Veterans of the small-arms industry are glad the Army is trying to improve the Soldier's individual weapon but maintain the service could do more.

Whoever ends up making the improved carbine, the Army should give that company research and development money every year to search for new ways to improve the weapon's performance, said C. Reed Knight Jr., the head of Knight's Armament Company.

"We have to build incentives, and we have to build rewards," Knight said. "Today, that system does not exist."

For now, the Army is ready to listen, Tamilio maintains.

"We want to make sure we are not asking for something that industry cannot deliver, and if industry can deliver something better than we are asking for, please tell us," he said.

Matthew Cox, a freelance defense reporter, can be found at TacticalWriter.com.

© Copyright 2011 Military.com. All rights reserved.

[buglerbilly]

This so-called M4 reaplacement program is the most ferked up deal going....................


Another lawmaker questioned Fuller about the Army's individual carbine competition, to find a follow-on to the M4 Carbine weapon Soldiers are using now in Afghanistan. Fuller told the lawmaker the competition was not about meeting a specific need but about seeing if there was something better for Soldiers.

"We want to continue to improve the M4 -- not necessarily associated with a complaint or challenge the field might be having -- but we want to refresh that technology," Fuller said. He told legislators there's been 63 improvements to the M4 since it was first fielded in 1991

"This (competition) is another iteration of improvements," he said. "We want to see through a full and open competition is there something better? That's what this competition will be doing for our individual carbine."

After competition, he said, the Army would evaluate what comes out of that and measure it against the current M4 to build a business case for making the investment to replace it.

Currently, the Army has 500,000 M4s in its inventory, and right now the Army is working to upgrade some 140,000 of those to the M4A1 model, which is fully automatic, and includes a heavier barrel to allow for an increased sustained rate of fire without overheating and ambidextrous controls.

So they are going to compete a bunch of rifles THEN see IF they can make a business case for it to replace the M4............So its not a replacement program it's a whim=and-a-prayer program whereby they may, or far more likely, may not replace the M4............!!!! Considering the shortage of funds the likliehood of replacement has to be SLIM at best...............and all of this is without the idiotic hyper-burst fire requirement voiced recently! A complete waste of time and effort and I'd run a mile if I was a manufacturer........pointless!

[buglerbilly]

Via the Firearm Blog.................

Big AR-15 KABOOM

This is by far the worst AR-15 kaboom I have ever seen on the internet. The operator somehow mistakingly mixed pistol powder and rifle powder in a few of the cartridges he loaded. The result was catastrophic failure. Just about all the parts were destroyed. Photos from ARFCOM ...

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=533885&page=2







Apparently the gold-like coating on the bolt and carrier is from the vaporized brass cartridge. Can any engineers or chemists confirm this?

The shooter was ok, other than getting whacked in the face with the charging handle and having small pieces of the carbon fiber freefloating tube embedded in his forearm.

More photos after the jump ...

The rifle parts list ...

Parts list:

Cav-arms mk2 lower in tan + lower parts kit.
Custom trigger pins.
Compass lake 18" govt profile douglas premium airguaged stainless steel barrel with matched bolt.
Ameetec cam pin, firing pin, firing pin retainer pin, slick side upper receiver.
Charging handle
USGI 30rd aluminum magazine with Magpul follower, and Magpul magpul in OD green.
Miculek brake
YHM low profile gas block, gas tube
Clark custom forearm, carbon fiber lightweight tube
Young mfg bolt carrier.
Timney trigger

Parts destroyed:

upper, lower receivers.
BCG: total loss
Forearm
barrel, gas tube, gas block, muzzle brake,
LPK: mag release, bolt release, custom trigger pins, take down pins.
charging handle is bent.
USGI mag with magpul follower and ODgreen magpul.

Parts salvaged:

sling, bipod, buffer, buffer spring, selector(safety), timney trigger(maybe I have not tested it yet),
ACOG.



[ Many thanks to jdun1911 for emailing me the link. ]

[buglerbilly]

Midwest Industries MI-18 Drop In Midlength Handguard (Gen II)

April 13th, 2011 | Photo Recon Photo Recon Product Announcement Product Preview Review | Posted by Stickman



Last month Midwest Industries released their second generation carbine handguard, the MI-17. The sibling midlength version has now hit the shelves, and we’ve had a chance to use them for a little while. These are a light weight (9.7 oz) two piece drop in handguard that require no tools, and install the same way you install standard polymer handguards. They are a standard 9″ in length (so they fit the midlength gas system”, 2.3″ wide, and 2.43″ tall. Lock up is tight, though you can get a little bit of movement if you crank side to side on a VFG, which is normal for a non- free floating rail. With a street price of around $140, these give a lot of bank for the buck, and are made here in the USA.



Midwest Industries lists the features below.

MI-18 Midlength Rail

Length 9″

Width 2.3″

Height 2.43″
•Made For AR15 Mid Length Rifles
•No Gunsmith Installation. (Simply install like factory plastic units.)
•MIL-STD 1913 Rails.
•Solid Lock-up.
•T-marked For Accessory Location.
•4 anti-rotation QD sockets for push button swivels
•Constructed of 6061 Hard Coat Anodized For a Lifetime of Service.
•Grenade Launcher or Shotgun Compatible With Lower Section Removed.
•High Quality at an Affordable Price.

http://www.midwestindustriesinc.com/

[buglerbilly]

Via the Fierarm Blog..........

LWRC to use the Anniston Army Depot for manufacturing

LWRC has signed an agreement with the Anniston Army Depot to use its facilities and civilian workforce to manufacturer rifles.


LWRC M6A4 carbine

This will give LWRC significant production capabilities and allow them to make a bid for the improved carbine program. Christian at KitUp reports ...


“To alleviate the concerns or fears that the Army might have about our production capacity, we’ve entered into a teaming arrangement with the Anniston Army Depot,” officials from LWRC told Kit Up! during a visit to their offices last week. The depot has entered into public-private partnerships like this before, the company tells us, but mostly for large vehicle programs like Strykers and Bradleys.

“Nobody in the small arms industry has ever done this,” says LWRC executive VP Darren Mellors. “What’s the best way for the Army to protect the small arms industrial base? It’s to have the work running through their arsenal and depot system.”

I am surprised the Army would get involved with a private firm, giving them a significant advantage over other small firms in the bid for improved carbine contracts.

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

M4 You? M4 Me?

Posted by Paul McLeary at 4/26/2011 10:48 AM CDT



Start warming up your arguments over whether the U.S. Army should keep its current M4 Carbine or try and replace it with another weapon because next month, the service is issuing a Request for Proposals for a new carbine that will kick off a three-year fight for the contract to supply 70,000 to 100,000 weapons.

Late last month the Army hosted an industry day to answer questions and provide the assembled industry reps a little more guidance on what will be in the RFP, and in published responses to questions from industry, the Army has laid out the following schedule:

Final RFP: May 2011 (estimated)

Phase I Evaluation: Jul-Oct 2011 (estimated)

Phase II Evaluation: Nov 2011 - Jul 2012 (estimated)

Contract Award(s): Oct 2012 (estimated)

Down-select Evaluation: Oct 2012 - Mar 2013 (estimated)

There is no caliber requirement or restriction on industry submissions (so fans of 5.56 and 7.62 have at it!), and the weapon can be either a gas or piston system. The Army is hardly giving up on the M4 however, and plans on embarking on its “dual path” strategy to begin the competition for a new carbine while at the same time upgrading the M4. As the Army Times pointed out earlier this year:

The first phase essentially distributes an improved M4A1, which is notable for its heavier barrel and automatic fire. The heavier barrel reduces warping and erosion, resulting in better performance and longer life. It also allows for a higher sustained rate of fire. The Army also is adding ambidextrous controls.

The second phase will focus on increasing the M4’s effectiveness and accuracy, with emphasis on the bolt, bolt carrier assembly and the forward rail assembly.

Lots more to come once the RFP comes out and industry starts jockeying for position.

[buglerbilly]

India Seeking Small Arms, Ammunition Worth $1 Billion

(Source: Forecast International; issued April 28, 2011)

NEW DELHI --- India plans to purchase 44,618 close-quarter battle (CQB) carbines and 33.6 million rounds of ammunition. This deal is worth a potential $1 billion (Rs.4,440 crore). The Indian Army is looking at a 5.56 mm caliber system with a rate of fire of 660 rounds a minute. Foreign vendors are partnering with Indian firms.

Potential competitors include FN Herstal, Beretta, Heckler and Koch, Israel Weapon Industries Ltd (IWI), Colt Defense Llc, Bushmaster Firearms International Llc and Singapore Technologies Kinetics Ltd, among others. Singapore Technologies may not be allowed to compete. In addition to small arms and ammunition, India will purchase magazines, bayonets, slings, reflex sights and visible and invisible laser spot designators.

The selected carbines will likely be manufactured under licence by the new Indian ordnance unit at Amethi in Uttar Pradesh. In addition to the initial batch, India could manufacture another 116,764 carbines and 218,320 advanced carbines for an estimated $500 million. As many as 10,730 lightweight assault rifles for para-special forces may also be acquired.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

77gr of justice from an HK416 likely last thing Osama bin Laden saw

May 9th, 2011 | Quick Post | Posted by Rob Curtis



Other reports said Colt 901's in 7.62mm which I viewed slightly askance as that gun has only just appeared at the last SHOT show a few months ago......................

I’ve just heard from a SOCOM vet with enough clout to have earned a photoshopped place in the situation room photo behind Hillary’s empty seat. He tells me the stack of SEAL assaulters from Red team that went through Osama bin Laden’s bedroom door were running HK416s. He tells me his sources are inside DevGru and “were on the operation.” This is the third and most reliable independent source to date that’s told me the piston driven wundergun took down America’s Most Wanted.

[buglerbilly]

ADCOR Defense B.E.A.R. Enters Competition to Replace Army’s M4 Carbine

(Source: ADCOR Defense, Inc.; issued May 12, 2011)

WASHINGTON --- ADCOR Defense today announced its entry into the military Individual Carbine (IC) market with a revolutionary new design that increases the reliability, accuracy, and lethality of the existing soldier weapon.

The ADCOR Defense Brown Enhanced Automatic Rifle (B.E.A.R.; Patent # 065111.00128) is quickly becoming known as one of the most technologically advanced rifles on the market with its unique gas-piston system with free-floating barrel -- the Holy Grail of reliability and accuracy.

“The ADCOR Defense B.E.A.R. combines a new piston system with an exclusive ejection port dust wiper with cover, an ambidextrous forward-placed charging handle/forward-placed assist, and a new key-locked, highly rigid rail system,” said ADCOR Defense president Jimmy Stavrakis. “More importantly, this innovative design will increase reliability and eliminate the soldier’s most common cause of weapon failure – jamming due to operation in harsh, dirty environments.”

Confident in its revolutionary design, ADCOR intends to enter the ADCOR Defense B.E.A.R. in the U.S. Army’s upcoming competition to replace its current M4 carbine. Extensive testing by ADCOR and independent laboratories demonstrates the B.E.A.R. fully performs under harsh conditions and heavy firing schedules without fail.

After a typical AR carbine fires, the weapon is susceptible to contaminants because the ejection port door remains open until it is manually closed. Dust, sand and debris can enter the receiver and work in between the receiver and bolt, potentially jamming the carbine. These contaminants also create wear and maintenance issues.

ADCOR’s patent-protected design solves this problem with a spring-loaded dust cover mounted on the carbine’s bolt carrier: Each time the weapon fires and the bolt carrier returns to the ready position, the dust cover moves into the ejection port opening, flush with the outside geometry of the carbine. No dust, sand or debris can enter the weapon.

The design of ADCOR’s gas piston system and operation rod completely eliminates carrier tilt. This design ensures reliability by preventing hot gases and carbon particulates from entering the receiver and fouling the chamber and the action, requiring less maintenance and increasing the overall reliability of the weapon.

The B.E.A.R. also permits an operator to charge, clear or forward assist the weapon without losing any engagement with the target. It is an easy-to-use single mechanism, and the handle is detachable (without tools) and is ambidextrous for use on either side of the weapon.

Another important feature of the B.E.A.R. is that its rail system is compatible with all M4 accessory items such as optical sights, image intensification sights, thermal sights, laser targeting systems, bipods, tactical lights, and Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES) of the existing AR platform.

ADCOR Defense, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Adcor Industries, Inc. located in Baltimore, Maryland. From its origins in providing high-speed machining services to a broad range of industries including aerospace, telecommunications, defense and other industrial enterprises, ADCOR has evolved into a value-added product integrator and manufacturer of its own unique product line.

Today, ADCOR's facilities include a 50,000-square-foot, state-of-the-art Commercial Manufacturing plant, with over 50 machine tool centers, a 14,000-square-foot warehouse distribution and fulfillment facility and 7,500 square feet of modern office space.
-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Army Answers Questions on Improved Carbine Competition

by Matthew Cox on May 17, 2011



I can see this easily becoming another clusterf#*k..............and the hyper burst aspect is just DUMB!

The U.S. Army Improved Carbine Q&A is floating around the web and provides some interesting details about the concerns gun makers have as the Army prepares to release the final request for proposal this month for a competition to replace the M4 carbine.

Here are the top 10 that stood out to me after a quick scrub of the Army’s responses to the 246 questions from the small arms industry.

One issue gun makers seem to puzzle over is Army’s requirement for “hyper burst.”


23. By “ hyper-burst “, do you mean controlled burst?

RESPONSE: “Hyper-burst” is defined as “A firing mode that provides multiple/two rounds on target/aim point with a single trigger pull, with the shooter only perceiving single-shot recoil without the muzzle jump/muzzle climb associated with standard burst and/or full automatic firing” and appears in paragraph 6.7 of AR-PD-173 with the other definitions.

Another reads:


148. Firing Modes: “Hyper Burst” is requested as an Objective Requirement for the IC. What is the required accuracy (burst dispersion) on target in inches and at what range? (i.e. all rounds within a 2 inch tile at 25 meters).

RESPONSE: AR-PD-173 has no accuracy requirement for this. Having the function will suffice.

Gun experts that I talk to maintain that the only company that has a working hyper burst capability is Izhmach, a Russian arms company that produces the AN94. The AN94 has a two-round burst mode that fires at a rate of 1800 rounds per minute.

The Army, however, seems confident that hyper burst is attainable in the western gun market, judging from its response to part of this question.


197. Does “Hyperburst” technology currently exist? Does duplex ammunition constitute Hyperburst? Must the “Precision Match Trigger Group” also support select fire or “Hyperburst” capability?

RESPONSE: Yes-Hyper burst does exist in the market. Duplex ammo does not constitute “Hyperburst. The Precision Match Trigger is required to support all firing modes.

These others seem to represent the challenges gun makers are up against.


6. Introduction -L1.1.1 (page 95 of 122 OF THE ORIGINAL Draft RFP): “An Offeror is permitted to submit one (1) proposal for consideration, which offers a single design that best meets the Government requirements.” We request that this language be removed to allow for multiple designs to be submitted since this will present the Government with the widest range of possible solutions.

RESPONSE: It is incumbent upon each vendor to submit the weapon they deem best meets the requirements of the IC purchase description.

72. Does the US Army plan on providing pressure data for the M855A1 when fired at 160 deg F and -60 deg F, in accordance with TOP32045?

RESPONSE: No.

106. Will the weight requirement be adjusted to accommodate a caliber modular weapon, larger than 5.56mm?

RESPONSE: No. The weight requirement addresses soldier mobility and capability and will not be changed.

107. The weight of the weapon is based on a full magazine with a magazine capacity that is unspecified. This causes an inconsistency between competitors using different size magazine capacities. Please specify the weight of the weapon without the magazine.

RESPONSE: The requirement regarding weight is currently being reviewed. Updates will be specified in the revised Purchase Description.

156. Merit for Modularity and IC Variants: Will special consideration or merit be afforded proposals and candidates that offer the following modularity and variants? … Merit for Modularity and IC Variants A. Caliber Modularity (conversion from one caliber to another by the operator without special tools).B. Barrel Length Modularity (barrel exchange by the operator without special tools).C. Buttstock Modularity (the ability to remove or exchange buttstock styles by the operator without tools to; no buttstock (i.e. butt cap only), sliding/retractable/collapsible buttstock, folding buttstock and/or sniper/DM buttstock options).D. Feed System Modularity (the ability to exchange the feed system/feed source/feed chute by the operator without tools to allow firing from box magazines, to drum magazines, to belted ammunition and/or to alternative calibers).

RESPONSE: Modularity is not a part of the requirement.

175. If the Carbine offering is capable of firing more than one caliber (i.e. NATO 9mm), will that caliber be tested as well.

RESPONSE: No. Contractors are to provide their submission assembled in the caliber/configuration they want to be evaluated. Vendors are required to submit only one candidate. It is up to the vendor to determine which caliber their candidate needs to be in order to meet the requirements.

238. Can the precision trigger be a two stage trigger.

RESPONSE: No.

There are other details that can be gleaned from the entire list of questions and responses. Let me know if you think I missed anything important.

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/2011/05/army-answers-questions-on-improve-carbine-competition.html#ixzz1MfEDZVNY
Kit Up!

[buglerbilly]

Noveske breaks out his 12.5″ GPR

May 17th, 2011 | Photo Recon Product Announcement Product Preview | Posted by Stickman

Noveske Rifleworks recently made the decision to expand their N4 barrel lineup to include the increasingly popular 12.5″ length. A few years back we were talking to John and he made the comment that if he could only have one barrel length in an AR15/ M4, it would be a 12.5″. He explained that the drop in velocity from the standard 14.5″ barrel wasn’t that much, but that the portability and overall handling of the weapon was substantially increased, all while retaining reliability.



Note the 12.5″ GPR shown in the images is wearing the AAC 18 tooth flash suppressor. The Noveske 12.5″ GPR comes with the 51 tooth AAC rapid attachment muzzle device for use with their cans, but since the can I use most often is the AAC SCAR Light suppressor, mine is a bit different. I’ve got no doubt you could swap your muzzle device for the can of your choice. You probably noticed this model comes with the Noveske Switchblock, which does a nice job of eliminating blow back when using a can.

Below are the specs from Noveske Rifleworks. This is available as an upper, or complete weapon, and is offered in multiple configurations to include stock handguards or the Vltor VIS.

http://noveskerifleworks.com/

12.5″ Cold Hammer Forged 5.56mm Barrel
–Made of Mil Spec M249 Machine Gun barrel steel, with heavy M249 Chrome Lining,
(appx. 2 times as thick as an M4 or M16)
–Extended Feed Ramps
–MP HP tested with certification
–1 in 7″ twist
–Mil Spec Phosphate finish
–Carbine length gas system
–1/2×28 threads
–Switchblock,(US pat #7,856,917), pinned to barrel
–Forged Vltor MUR upper receiver featuring an anti-rotation interface with the handguard
–9.5″ free floated handguard w/ 1913 rails
–Shot peened and MP tested bolt
–Auto carrier with properly staked carrier key
–Gun Fighter Charging Handle
–AAC 51T Blackout Flash Suppressor





Read more: http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/2011/05/17/noveske-breaks-out-his-12-5-n4/#more-9224

[buglerbilly]

Via Soldier Systems blog.........

DDM4 Torture Test

May 23rd, 2011

Pretty interesting video. I’d say it speaks for itself.


Uploaded by DanielDefense on May 17, 2011
We want to show you WHY you should buy an M4 rifle and WHY it need to be a Daniel Defense M4. Over two days we captured incredibly intense torture tests of a Daniel Defense M4. The torture test is broken down into the various tests performed by Daniel Defense employees and Larry Vickers. These are legitimate tests performed to gauge the durability of the Daniel Defense M4. The various tests are made to simulate real world environments, situations, and extreme circumstances.

www.danieldefense.com

[buglerbilly]

Gun makers jockey for DC influence

By Philip Ewing Wednesday, May 25th, 2011 8:01 am



American and international gun makers want to build a new carbine to replace the U.S. military’s ubiquitous M4, and they’re making moves in Washington to give themselves as much of an edge as possible in influencing the government’s decision, AP reports in a must-read story. Colt — which makes the M4 — Remington, Smith & Wesson and others all are hiring lobbyists and working their relationships with lawmakers so that their guns have the best chance in the next pending acquisition battle.

For the small arms world, the prize doesn’t get much bigger:


After buying more than 700,000 Colt M4 carbines, the Defense Department has started a search for the rifle’s successor, giving Colt’s competitors the long-awaited chance to break the company’s grip on the market. So Colt turned to Roger Smith, a former deputy assistant Navy secretary-turned-lobbyist, to be the company’s voice in D.C. His fee is $120,000 a year.

The move highlights the importance of a contest that is the Super Bowl and World Series rolled into one for the small arms industry. The Pentagon may buy hundreds of thousands of the new carbine, which should be more accurate, lethal and reliable than the M4 used by troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. At stake is millions of dollars in business for the winner at a time when budgets are tightening and opportunities for long-term weapons contracts are dwindling.

There are major side benefits to being the primary rifle supplier. The American military’s seal of approval paves the way for gun sales to U.S. allies. Colt has sold 100,000 M4s overseas, and millions of its M16s — a rifle first fielded during the Vietnam War — are used by armies and law enforcement agencies around the world.

Secretary Gates has said resetting the Army and Marines belongs on the list of things DoD must do, along with buying the tanker, F-35, etc., meaning there’s an additional incentive for gun makers to fight for this deal — it could enjoy a kind of protected status even in Austerity America. (Of course, everyone thinks his or her piece of the defense pie is absolutely critical to American freedom and security.) But Gates, you won’t need to be reminded, is on his way into retirement. Will his replacement, Leon Panetta, put the same priority on buying hundreds of thousands of new rifles — when DoD already owns hundreds of thousands of rifles?

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/05/25/gun-makers-jockey-for-dc-influence/#ixzz1NODCQ935
DoDBuzz.com

[Deks]

Gun makers jockey for DC influence

fee is $120,000 a year. What, is that it ?

[buglerbilly]

What is what? Are you talking about his fee being possibly low?

If so, then think again, his fee will have all sorts of conditions built in so if they are successful his rewards become MUCH larger.

This fee is a retainer for his services and knowledge, its got little to do with the end reward.

[buglerbilly]

Via Soldier Systems blog............

Army to Offer Compatibility Check to IC Developers

May 27th, 2011

The Army has announced that they are going to offer the various vendors interested in pursuing the Individual Carbine solicitation a chance to check their candidate’s non-firing compatibility with the following “enablers”: M9 Bayonet; M26 Modular Accessory Shotgun Systems; M203A2 Grenade Launcher; M320A1 Grenade Launcher; M23 Blank Firing Adaptor; M68 Reflex Sight w/Mount; M150 Rifle Combat Optic; PEQ-15 (Laser/Light); PEQ-15A (Infrared Aiming Laser); AN/PAS-13; Thermal Weapon Sight; AN-PSQ-23 (STORM) (Multi-functional laser system); and the Grenade Rifle Entry Munition Training Round (GREM-TP) (inert round). Some of these products are expensive as well as all but impossible to source so this move is welcomed by many in the industry.

The non-firing compatibility check will be held at HP White Labs in Maryland at a date to be determined once registration for the opportunity has concluded. Each company will get 8 hours of initial time and an additional 4 if needed as follow up. The check is for attachment and detachment of the enablers only and no ammunition or batteries will be provided by the Government or allowed by the vendors.

Instructions directly from the solicitation:


“Interested vendors must register to participate by contacting Holly Gregg via email, at holly.gregg2@us.army.mil. The registration shall end ten (10) business days effective from the first day of this original posting and will be scheduled on a first come, first-served basis. After the Registration Period (23 May to 3 June, 2011) has ended, each vendor will be assigned a time slot to conduct their Compatibility check. The amount of time for the compatibility check will be the same for all vendors. Vendors are allowed to bring multiple weapons and three (3) representatives total will be enforced due to limited arms room space. The costs associated with the usage of H.P. Whites facility during the Compatibility Checks will be provided by the Government. No Government furnished property will be removed from H.P. Whites facility. Full accountability of the Government furnished property provided for this compatibility check will be maintained.”

[buglerbilly]

Meet the big guns and the hired guns in the M4 improvement program

May 27th, 2011 | Programatics | Posted by Rob Curtis

By Richard Lardner – The Associated Press



WASHINGTON — For nearly a decade, Colt Defense went without a lobbyist. The legendary gun maker based in West Hartford, Conn., had an exclusive deal to provide combat rifles to the U.S. military and didn’t need a hired gun looking out for the company’s interests in Washington.

Times have changed. After buying more than 700,000 Colt M4 carbines, the Defense Department has started a search for the rifle’s successor, giving Colt’s competitors the long-awaited chance to break the company’s grip on the market. So Colt turned to Roger Smith, a former deputy assistant Navy secretary-turned-lobbyist, to be the company’s voice in D.C. His fee is $120,000 a year.

The move highlights the importance of a contest that is the Super Bowl and World Series rolled into one for the small arms industry. The Pentagon may buy hundreds of thousands of the new carbine, which should be more accurate, lethal and reliable than the M4 used by troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. At stake is millions of dollars in business for the winner at a time when budgets are tightening and opportunities for long-term weapons contracts are dwindling.

There are major side benefits to being the primary rifle supplier. The American military’s seal of approval paves the way for gun sales to U.S. allies. Colt has sold 100,000 M4s overseas, and millions of its M16s — a rifle first fielded during the Vietnam War — are used by armies and law enforcement agencies around the world.

Remington Arms and other gun makers already had lobbyists in place long before the Army announced it wanted a better combat rifle. Remington has spent nearly $500,000 on lobbyists over the last two years alone in a push to get more of its weapons into the hands of U.S. troops, according to lobbying records filed with Congress.

Remington, with its headquarters in Madison, N.C., and a manufacturing plant in upstate New York, is represented by the firms Winborn Solutions and Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough. Remington will offer its multicaliber Adaptive Combat Rifle.

“The biggest thing that Remington wants is the ability to compete for contracts,” said Jason Schauble, vice president of Remington’s military products division.

While the Pentagon makes decisions on what equipment to buy, Congress provides the money. And lawmakers can influence the decision-making process by inserting language into legislation that authorizes the military’s annual budget.

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, a member of the Democratic leadership, has been a strong supporter of Remington.

Smith, who runs RMax Technologies, a Washington consulting firm, registered as Colt’s representative in April 2010, according to disclosure records. He knows how the process works. Before his six years as a senior Navy official, Smith was a staffer on the House Armed Services Committee and responsible for oversight of Army weapons programs.

“There’s nothing nefarious about it,” said James Battaglini, Colt’s executive vice president. “We believe it is important to have a person in the Washington area that is available to speak on our behalf because we are in Connecticut.”

Colt is losing a powerful proponent on Capitol Hill. Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, will not seek a fifth term. But members of the state’s congressional delegation still hold influential positions. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat, sits on the House Appropriations Committee. Rep. John Larson is the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House, and Colt is in his district.

Colt won’t say what weapon it plans to enter in the competition to replace its M4. But the betting is on the CM901, Colt’s newly designed multicaliber rifle, which can switch barrels depending on the size of the round being fired.

Colt received a no-bid contract in 1994 for the M4, a shorter and lighter version of the M16. Colt has been the military’s only source of M4s ever since. In the late 1990s, FNMI, the South Carolina-based subsidiary of Belgian armorer FN Herstal, challenged the exclusive arrangement in federal court but lost.

The Army, which serves as the military’s principal buyer of firearms, took control of the M4 design rights from Colt nearly two years ago. In January, a draft solicitation was issued, formally kicking off the contest. At the same time, the Army is seeking bids for improvements to the M4s in its inventory.

FNMI sells a combat rifle called the SCAR to the U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla. The command has its own acquisition budget and the latitude to buy gear the conventional military branches can’t. FNMI also sells machine guns to the Army.

Fighting FNMI’s battles inside Washington’s Beltway is the American Business Development Group, a firm that boasts a roster of retired military officers who “provide strategic guidance and access” to the leadership at the Defense Department and other federal agencies. FN Herstal pays the firm $120,000 a year, according to disclosure records.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is a Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Republican congressman Joe Wilson sits on the House Armed Services Committee. FMNI, based in Columbia, S.C., is in Wilson’s district.

Smith & Wesson, known more for handguns than military rifles, will also bid for the carbine work. The company, based in Springfield, Mass., pays the firm Greenberg Traurig $360,000 a year to be its Washington representative, disclosure records show.

Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts is the top Republican on the Armed Services subcommittee that oversees Army programs.

But not all prospective competitors think a lobbying firm is necessary — at least, not any longer. Heckler & Koch, a German firearms maker with affiliates in the U.S., parted ways with Greenberg Traurig in 2009 and another Washington firm, Mark Barnes and Associates, in early 2010.

The company had no comment on the reason for sidelining its lobbyists.

Wayne Weber, president of Heckler & Koch USA, said the company will submit its HK416 combat rifle as the replacement for the M4. The HK416 is used by U.S. special operations troops, including the Army’s elite Delta Force.

[buglerbilly]

USASOC Plans SCAR Conversions

by christian on June 3, 2011

Kit Up! obtained a copy of the SOFIC brief on USASOC’s plan for future weapons to 2017. In it, we noticed an interesting piece of the assault rifle plan that concurrently runs a caliber conversion kit for the Mk-17 along with continued fielding and sustainment of the SCAR heavy.

The slide also shows the Mk-16 going out of circulation and USASOC taking a look at the potential Big Army improved carbine.

There’s also some stuff in there for you operators out there who hang a bunch of furnature on your AR. Take a look and let us know what you think.

SOF Warrior - Assault Rifle Slide

http://www.scribd.com/doc/57008891/SOF-Warrior-Assault-Rifle-Slide

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz1OEDpUgBs
Kit Up!

[buglerbilly]

Via the Firearm blog...........

THOR TR-15 “Talon” PDW AR-15

THOR is taking pre-orders for their new THOR TR-15 "Talon" PDW. The gun has a 7" barrel and is piston operated.



The carbine features:

Quad Rail System
Noveske KX3
Magpul CTR stock
Magpul PMAG maagzine
Magpul MIAD Grip
TROY Rear Sight
TROY Front Sight
Magpul AFG
KAC Rear Sling Swivel
KNS Anti Walk Pins
Badger Tactical Latch

You have to ask for pricing, so you bet it will be expensive.

[buglerbilly]

Good summary of the mish-mash of activities that are going on with regards to the SCAR 16 and a multitude of other US rifle systems...................via Vuurwapen blog............

Posted by Andrew Tuohy

As posted over on The Firearm Blog, FN SCARs in 5.56 currently "owned" by USSOCOM will be soon "divested." Why? Well, it really doesn't do anything that the M4A1 doesn't do, but more importantly, it doesn't do anything that the MK17, its 7.62x51mm bigger brother, doesn't do - and the MK17 can be converted to 5.56, as well as other calibers that may not exist in the pipeline yet. We already knew that the MK16 was on its way out, but this serves as official confirmation.

Conversion kits to 5.56 for the MK17 may seem puzzling to some in light of the MK16 rejection, but they make a lot of sense, really. One serialized item that can do the work of two simplifies logistics.

We knew that there was an improved carbine competition, and it shouldn't come as any real surprise that, if adopted, it would replace the M4A1 in SOF use. What many manufacturers participating in the competition might wish to take note of is the part that says "caliber-tbd." Speculation on my part, but could something like 300 Blackout have a chance as a primary caliber here? Or will we be back to the 6.5 vs 6.8 wars of the last decade?

Also of note in the pdf shown on The Firearm Blog is that SOCOM is getting rid of the MK11 and MK12. The MK11 is a Knight's Armament SR-25 variant, and the MK12 is a heavily modified AR-15 variant. They are, however, keeping the M110, which is a different SR-25 variant. There's also a mention of an M110 A1 Compact, which could be interesting. The SR-25 EM Carbine comes to mind.

The MK17 and MK20 variants of the SCAR Heavy will be replacing the MK11 and MK12 in the semi-auto precision rifle role, but there's also mention of the current M24 SWS - and the highly modified M2010, and the MK13 bolt action .300 Win Mag - being replaced by an unnamed Precision Sniper Rifle (PSR). Everything I had heard about the MK17 SSR/MK20 until now had been that it was exceptional, so its replacement of the MK11 comes as no real surprise.

[buglerbilly]

Via Vuurwapen blog..............

Posted by Andrew Tuohy

June 9, 2011

Rob_S, creator of the oft-discussed spreadsheet comparing M4 rifles from various manufacturers known simply - and ominously - as "The Chart," has released a long-awaited new version which includes more testing, features, and is based on a survey of manufacturers.

This "new chart" includes Accurate Armory, Bravo Company, CMMG, Colt, Daniel Defense, LMT, Noveske, SIONICS, Spike's Tactical, and Stag. Olympic is also listed, but apparently didn't provide any information other than their telephone number.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_US&hl=en_US&key=0AqmgMm61Ok7WdExwaG16OENzOEZ1akp2a3Y2NjMxTEE&single=true&gid=2&output=html

[buglerbilly]

Via the Firearm blog...............gonna watch this one with interest............

LWRC files lawsuit against SIG Sauer over SIG516 Rifle

LWRC Interational, manufacturer of AR-15 rifles for consumers and military, are suing SIG Sauer. LWRC claims SIG's SIG516 line of piston-operated AR-15 rifles infringes upon their U.S. patent #7461581 "Self-cleaning gas operating system for a firearm".


SIG516 Patrol Rifle

LWRC claims it is suffering irreparable damage and is asking the court for a preliminary injunction to prevent further infringement of their IP.

At least in the firearm industry, cases like these are almost always settled out of court.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/57814752/LWRC-International-vs-Sig-Sauer-lawsuit

[buglerbilly]

Via the Firearm blog...............

Army to buy 70,000 – 100,000 more M4A1 Carbines

The US Army is looking to purchase an additional 70,000 - 100,000 M4A1 Carbines.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=f5b06e4839ee252feb6fc4dccb252722&tab=core&tabmode=list


The total estimated quantity is 70,000 to 100, 000 weapons. The Government anticipates ordering 25-30% in each of years 1 and 2 and 13-17% in each of years 3 through 5. Award is intended to be acquired through best value competition restricted to the U.S. & Territories. The carbines will be produced in accordance with the M4/M4A1 Technical Data Package (TDP) and the license agreement between the U.S. Government and Colt Defense, LLC.

It is interesting to note that the pre-solicitation request makes no mention of the M4 upgrades that PEO Solider is working on.

[buglerbilly]

Article via Defense Industry Daily............

Colt M4 Data Rights & The Individual Carbine Competition

Jun 21, 2011 19:30 EDT


M4 carbine, firing

Guest Article by Daniel E. Watters

On June 14/11, the US Army released a pre-solicitation notice for the procurement of approximately 70,000 to 100,000 M4 and M4A1 carbines in a best value competition (W56HZV-10-R-0593). This represents the first time that the procurement of the M4/M4A1 has not been limited to Colt Defense. How was this point reached, exactly what are the Army’s options, and how that may affect the Individual Carbine competition?

There’s still a very good chance that the competition for a new replacement rifle will meet the fate of previous competitions, and the Army will continue to buy the M4…

The Infamous M4 Addendum


M16A1, A2, A3, A4

Contrary to popular misconception, the US Department of Defense does not own the technical data package (TDP) for either the M4 carbine or its parent, the M16 rifle. In June/67, in its role as the DOD’s designated procurement agency, the US Army purchased a license from Colt for the TDP and the rights to produce the M16 family of weapons and its component parts.

Some wonder why Colt proprietary rights to the M16 TDP and M4 TDP are still given such reverence by the Army, long after most applicable patents had expired. For example, the Army paid royalties on second-sourced M16 rifles and parts until 1990. It is more glaring in the case of the M4 as very little of the M4’s original design was ever patented by Colt. The short answer is that the Army agreed to such terms in the original 1967 licensing agreement and its amendments, particularly the infamous “M4 Addendum” of 1997.

The origin of the “M4 Addendum” traces back to the improper release of the M4 TDP by the US Army’s Rock Island Arsenal to the US Navy’s NSWC-Crane in early 1996. NSWC-Crane had requested a copy of the M4A1 TDP to support the solicitation of accessories for the M4 SOPMOD kit. While soliciting an adaptor for training ammunition, NSWC-Crane provided the M4A1 TDP to 21 vendors in August/96. As one of the potential bidders, Colt was very much surprised to receive a copy of their own TDP drawings, and gave notice that the terms of the 1967 Licensing Agreement had breached. NSWC-Crane quickly attempted to recover all copies of the TDP and sent out non-disclosure agreements (NDA) to the other 20 vendors. All of the vendors except FN Manufacturing complied. FN Manufacturing officials had balked on one of the five terms of the NDA, refusing to state whether they had safeguarded the TDP while it was in their possession. Instead, they provided a letter asserting that they had not improperly used the data.

Around the time, the Army announced the procurement of 716 M4A1 and 9,785 M4 carbines. FN Manufacturing submitted an unsolicited bid, which was promptly rejected. However, the damage was done. Connecticut’s Congressional delegation became involved, demanding a DOD Inspector General audit of the Army and Navy’s actions in their handling of the M4 TDP. By the end of the year, Colt announced that the DOD’s failure to adequately to protect the proprietary data constituted a material breach of the 1967 Licensing Agreement. Thus, the licensing agreement would be terminated, and the DOD could no longer use the TDP in the second-source procurement of the M16/M4 or their parts. Colt also threatened a lawsuit, estimating damages from $43.5 – 70 million. In response, the Army claimed that the license could only be terminated if they had not made a best faith effort to correct the situation.

Settlement negotiations between Colt and the Army dragged on through 1997. In December 1997, an agreement was reached. Colt would waive its damage claims and leave the previous terms of the 1967 licensing agreement intact with regards to the M16 TDP. In return, the Army agreed to not use the M4 TDP for competitive procurement for a set period of time, ensuring Colt’s sole-source status. The resulting agreement was dubbed the “M4 Addendum”.

However, FN Manufacturing still hoped to gain a piece of M4 procurement, and found their chance in May/98. The Army announced that it was awarding Colt a $8,296,925 contract for 15,925 M4/M4A1 Carbines. The following day, FN Manufacturing delivered an unsolicited proposal claiming that they were also capable of producing the M4 for the US Army. The Army’s rejection of the proposal led to FN Manufacturing filing suit in the US Court of Federal Claims.

A series of dismissals and appeals ultimately led to FN Manufacturing challenging the Army’s right to give Colt sole-source rights to the M4, given its similarity to the M16. This placed the Army is the awkward position of claiming that the M4 was really far different than the M16 and XM177, after originally claiming that the M4 had about 80% in common with the M16. The US Court of Federal Claims ultimately dismissed FN Manufacturing’s protests, ruling that the Army was well within its rights to forego any claims to the M4 TDP.

At the time, it probably seemed like a good deal to give Colt sole-source rights to the M4, in return for the DOD maintaining its rights to second-source the M16 and its spares. Back in the late 1990s, the US Army and other service branches intended to issue far more M16 rifles than M4 carbines.

All seemed well, until the US Army dramatically expanded its issue of the shorter M4 Carbine over the M16 during its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, ultimately leading to decision to issue a “pure fleet” of M4. Likewise, the other service branches began to increase their issue of the M4, most notably the decision of the US Marine Corps to issue the carbine as a replacement for pistols and rifles amongst senior enlisted personnel and field-grade officers.

At the same time, Colt’s prices for the M4 began to steadily increase. In December 1999, Colt was charging $521 per M4 carbine (DAAE20-98-C-0082-P00011). By December 2002, Colt’s price for an US Army-configuration M4 carbine was $912 (DAAE20-02-C-0115-P00004). However, the Army was able to gain certain concessions over the years. In July 2006, Colt agreed to lower its prices, and begin to provide basic issue items like the Back Up Iron Sight (BUIS) and M4 Adaptor Rail System (ARS), which had formerly been provided to Colt as Government Furnished Material (GFM) (W52H09-04-D-0086-P00025). Before this concession, the price of the M4 and M4A1 had grown to $1,012 and $1,029, respectively (W52H09-04-D-0086-0040). Afterwards, the price of a basic M4 dropped to $815, and with Colt-provided BUIS and ARS only $1,142 (W52H09-04-D-0086-0040). At the time of the final sole-source delivery order in December 2010, Colt’s price was just over $1,221 per fully-equipped carbine (W52H09-07-D-0425-BR02).

As discussed in “The US Army’s M4 Carbine Controversy”, Colt’s steady increase in prices, combined with stories of M4 unreliability, led to unwanted Congressional attention. In response, rival manufacturers have moved in and stepped up lobbying efforts. They’re hoping hoping to gain a share of a second-sourced contract for the M4 carbine, or score a complete win with a contract for a replacement rifle.

What Second Sourcing Really Means


M203 on M4 Carbine

As of July 1/09, the sole source clause of the “M4 Addendum” expired, allowing the Army to second source production of the M4/M4A1 carbines and their unique parts. Under the terms of the licensing agreement, however, the M4 TDP remains Colt proprietary data. Those terms also state that the US Army would have to pay 5% in royalties to Colt, for every M4/M4A1 carbine and/or their unique parts procured from second sources, for another 26 years – through Dec 24/37.

Second source contractors will also be required to sign non-disclosure agreements, just as they do for the M16. The non-disclosure/ non-use agreements for accessing the TDP will forbid the other companies from using Colt’s proprietary data for commercial sales. Once the second-source vendor’s military contract ends, the company will be required to be destroy all of the TDP information provided to them.

The Individual Carbine


Remington ACR

The Army’s recent pre-solicitation for open source production of the M4/M4A1 brings up an interesting quandary for Colt. I fully expect FN Manufacturing to submit an M4 bid close to what they charge for their M16A4, and that will be seriously hard to beat.

Obviously, if Colt does not bid low enough, they cannot expect to win the contract. However, if Colt’s bid is significantly lower than their last contract price, they will find Congress, the GAO, and the DOD asking some uncomfortable questions as to why their previous prices were so much higher.

If FN Manufacturing or another company is awarded a M4/M4A1 contract, at a per unit cost significantly less than Colt’s previous prices, it will also put intense pressure on the pricing of the Individual Carbine candidates. As the deck already seems stacked against non-5.56mm entries, the Individual Carbine solicitation winner will need to show a huge increase in reliability and durability, in order to justify any large difference in price over the new M4/M4A1 price. Competitors cannot expect to price their candidates 1.5 to 2 times higher and be adopted.

Judgements about the ratio of acquisition and separate support costs, vs. performance, have already been used to sink FN USA’s 5.56mm SCAR-16 within USSOCOM. Barring a change in priorities, the Individual Carbine may survive all of its laboratory and field tests, and yet fall victim to the harsh reality of a tightening DOD budget.

[buglerbilly]

Shooting Iluustrated via the Fierarm Blog.............

Exclusive: Update on the FN SCAR

Some clarification as to the SCAR's future.

By SI Staff (RSS)

June 27, 2011



There’s been some brouhaha over the FN SCAR in recent weeks, including some doubts about the SCAR’s future with the Special Operations community.

Here’s what FNH USA‘s Executive Vice President of Military Operations Mark Cherpes told us:


“In the early stages (presolicitation) of the SCAR program, the draft requirement defined a single weapon platform capable of adapting to multiple calibers (i.e. 5.56×45 mm, 7.62×51 mm, and 7.62×39 mm). FN had proposed and offered a single-platform system to USSOCOM that would adapt via conversion kit to SOF current and future ammunition. During the requirements finalization phase, the SOF operators took the decision that the weapon should be split in two platforms, one gun for 5.56 and a second gun for 7.62. The reason this decision was made at the time is that the SOF operators did not like the fact that the 5.56 base platform would have an increase in weight over the M4. The weight difference between the MK 16 Standard and the SCAR H Standard is about half a pound. Upon completion of the developmental test (DT), the operation test (OT), and the full Fielding and Deployment Release (FDR) authorization, AKA Milestone C, a new group of operators reversed that initial decision and said that they wanted to move back to the original spirit of the program: a single weapon platform capable of converting between 7.62 and 5.56.

Basically, to accomplish a multi-caliber system requires that we develop the gun on the basis of the largest caliber and then scale down the conversion kit to go to a smaller caliber. The MK 17 receiver is a little larger to accommodate the 7.62×51 mm ammunition. It is not possible to scale up a smaller receiver to accept 7.62 ammunition, thus the MK 17 was chosen as the base platform. This was almost seven years after the initial decision to split the platform and a new group of operators had rotated into the SCAR program effort. FN finalized the 5.56 conversion kit in late 2010 and it has passed all DT and OT testing, and an initial delivery order has been placed for the conversion kit.”

[buglerbilly]

Exclusive photos: The M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle in combat

June 27th, 2011 | Afghanistan Gear Infantry Weapons | Posted by Dan Lamothe

The M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle was approved for full fielding recently by Commandant Gen. Jim Amos. Marine Corps Times profiled the decision in its print edition last week, outlining what it means for each fire team, rifle qualifications and the gear Marines bring to war.

The decision is a big deal to the Corps, but until now, no photographs of the IAR in Afghanistan have been released. That’s where Marine Corps Times photographer Tom Brown comes in. Below, you’ll find images shot on patrol last week with 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines, out of Marine Corps Base Hawaii. It’s the first battalion to take the IAR to war, and senior writer Gina Cavallaro has a feature on it in this week’s print edition.

For now, the photos:


Lance Cpl. Joshua Houck, of Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines, looks through the scope of his M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle during a June 23 patrol in Garmser, Afghanistan. (Photo by Thomas Brown/Staff)


Lance Cpl. Joshua Houck, of Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines, crosses the Helmand River with the new M27 IAR during a June 23 patrol in Garmser, Afghanistan. (Photo by Tom Brown/Staff)


Lance Cpl. Kendrick Johnson, of Alpha Company 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines, holds the new M27 IAR during a June 23 patrol in Garmser, Afghanistan.

[buglerbilly]

Corps eyes next-generation service rifles

By Dan Lamothe - Staff writer

Posted : Monday Jun 27, 2011 8:33:29 EDT


Lance Cpl. Dwight A. Henderson / Marine Corps A Marine with Fox Company, 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marines, looks through his rear combat optics while on patrol in Garmser district, Helmand province, Afghanistan. Marksmanship officials have recommended several key changes to the M16A4 and M4 to improve combat effectiveness.

MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO, Va. — The Marine Corps is exploring a service rifle overhaul that could lead to the adoption of adjustable butt stocks, free-floating barrels and common slings on more than 200,000 weapons.

The proposals, among those recommended recently at the 2011 Combat Marksmanship Symposium, could lead to some of the most significant upgrades to the Corps’ service rifles since the 5.56mm M16A4 and M4 were adopted early during the Iraq war.

Some of the updates have been under consideration for years, but were sidelined by the Corps’ approval process and philosophical differences among top Marine officers. It isn’t assured that all of the upgrades will be adopted, but they have unified support from Marines who oversee marksmanship, said Col. Timothy Armstrong, head of Weapons Training Battalion, based at Quantico.

The recommendations will be pushed up the chain of command, and Marine Corps Systems Command will lead acquisitions projects.

“We are exploring potential materiel solutions where tactics, techniques and procedures will not resolve the issue,” said Barbara Hamby, a MARCORSYSCOM spokeswoman.

The Corps currently has more than 200,000 M16A4s and 80,000 M4s in its inventory, with the M16A4 serving as the primary rifle. The service issues M4 carbines primarily to vehicle operators and other Marines whose jobs render the M16A4’s 20-inch barrel cumbersome. The M4 has a 14.5-inch barrel, making it better in close-quarters combat, but diminishing accuracy and stopping power, especially at ranges beyond 200 yards.

The symposium was held in March, and recommendations were released June 3 in Marine administrative message 320/11. Weapons Training Battalion officials elaborated on the plans in aninterview with Marine Corps Times. They include:

Adjustable stocks

The M4 already has an adjustable butt stock on it, a development that enables soldiers and Marines to shoulder their weapon better, even while wearing body armor. The M16A4 does not, however, creating problems for shorter Marines, who struggle to get enough distance between their shooting eye and the optic while aiming.

At the symposium, marksmanship officials backed replacing the M16A4’s solid, 11-inch stock with an adjustable one similar to the M4’s, adding momentum to an argument that dates back years.

Historically, critics have questioned whether eliminating the solid M16A4 stock would weaken a workhorse weapon. It’s effective in hand-to-hand combat, where a butt stroke can be used to kill or incapacitate enemies, they say. The stock also comes in handy during the two-man lift, where two Marines hold each end of a weapon and hoist a third grunt over a wall or into a second-story window.

Proponents of the adjustable stock say those arguments are outdated and holding up progress. The Army has used the M4 as its primary service weapon for years with few complaints about its stock, they point out. Adjustable stock advocates also say the two-man lift and butt-stroking are uncommon, and in a pinch, the barrel of the rifle can be swung to incapacitate or kill a combatant.

Each of the changes they have proposed, including the butt stock swap, is rooted in analysis to improve combat effectiveness, Armstrong said.

“We’re trying to institute change in an organized fashion, based not off emotion or who talks the loudest,” he said. “It’s more looking at the data and the true analysis that takes place.”

Free-floating barrels

Marine officials also recommended adopting a free-floating rail system on all M16A4s and M4s. It’s a technique already used to increase accuracy on many of the Corps’ weapons, including the 7.62mm M40 and M110 sniper rifles and the 5.56mm M27 infantry automatic rifle.

Barrels of both the M16A4 and M4 attach to the rest of the rifle in several locations. That can affect accuracy, both in combat and on the range. For one, if tension is placed on a weapon’s sling incorrectly to draw a rifle close to fire, it can pull the barrel out of alignment with the optic, throwing off the zeroing of the weapon.

Incorporating a free-floating rail system would connect the barrel only with the receiver. That would keep the weapon’s zeroing truer, even when the rifle was placed under heavy sling tension or the weight of optics, pointers and other equipment.

“I’m not saying we’re not getting excellent results right now, but we are teaching them to compensate for the fact that it’s not a free-floating barrel,” said Chief Warrant Officer-3 Christian Wade, a gunner at Weapons Training Battalion. “It would be easier if it was, without a doubt.”

Marksmanship officials recommended that the adjustable butt stock and free-floating rail system be added on existing rifles at the same time.

Common slings

Marksmanship officials also backed the Corps adopting a common weapon sling that can be used anywhere, including during qualifications on all four tables of the Known Distance course of fire and in combat. The sling that will most likely be pursued for common use will have two points and work on all M4s and M16A4s.

Marines today use a variety of slings, and units frequently purchase their own with supplemental money received 180 days before deployment.

“Through testing and evaluation, we’re trying to get the Marine Corps steered toward a sling that has the most, broadest utility for the money,” Wade said.

One exception: The Corps will continue to field separate “parade slings” for use during ceremonies.

Eye-relief enhancement kit

An eye-relief enhancement kit for the M16A4 should be adopted Corps-wide as an interim solution until the adjustable butt stock is adopted, marksmanship officials also recommended.

The kits would allow Marines to keep their shooting eyes far enough from their optics to avoid getting hit in the face after a weapon recoils. Ideally, a Marine should have about 1½ inches of “eye relief” while looking through an optic. Currently, that’s a problem for many Marines, especially when body armor changes how the solid stock is shouldered.

The kit mounts to the rifle’s Picatinny rail, adding adjustable brackets that help a Marine mount his optic in the correct spot, given his height, arm length and the equipment and uniform he is wearing. It already has been fielded to thousands of Marines in deploying infantry battalions and has been tested by lieutenants in marksmanship training at The Basic School at Quantico.

Statistics were not available, but adding the kit to a rifle has helped to boost entry-level training scores there substantially, Wade said.

Other recommendations

Marine officials also backed the adoption of a different optic mount for nearly every rifle. Currently, the TA51 mount made by Trijicon is used to attach an optic to the rail of an M16A4 or M4. Marines tighten thumb screws to fasten it in place, and are ordered to use a small screwdriver or piece of metal to make sure it’s tight. They’ve been known to shake loose, however, especially when a Marine is involved in a firefight or some other situation where he is sending a lot of lead downrange in a short period of time.

Marksmanship officials backed a shift to a different mount made by Larue Tactical. Instead of thumb screws, it uses small “throw levers,” making it easier to remove a scope if a Marine needs to transition to his backup iron sights. The optic also doesn’t come loose the way it can when thumb screws work their way free as a weapon vibrates.

The Larue mounts will already be familiar to some Marines. They have been used for several years to mount optics to the M249 squad automatic weapon, Wade said. The Larue mounts also have been issued with the Corps’ IARs, which use the SAW day optic.

The symposium also yielded one recommendation that won’t require many changes: Make sure ambidextrous controls are issued to units for left-handed shooters. Currently, many units buy the controls, which make the magazine release and selector lever quickly accessible to southpaws, whose trigger-hand thumbs are on the opposite side of the rifle.

Marksmanship officials recommended that the Corps issue ambidextrous controls to unit armories to be installed as needed for left-handed shooters. They shouldn’t be adopted on all rifles, however, Wade said. Doing so would cost unnecessary money and add unneeded moving parts to right-handers’ rifles, he said.

[buglerbilly]

Via Soldier Systems blog............

Individual Carbine Solicitation Officially Released- Updated

June 29th, 2011

http://procnet.pica.army.mil/FBO/RFP/W15QKN-11-R-F003/Attachment/FINAL-RFP-W15QKN11RF003.zip

If you plan on being one of the contenders to supply the Army with a new carbine, you’d better have your bid in to Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey by 5:30 PM local time on 27 September, 2011. That gives us lots of time for the gun rags and internet commandos to wax philosophic about how poorly the solicitation was written and which wonder gun the Army should adopt.

The solicitation spells out the methodology to evaluate the proposals to narrow the field to three candidate weapons:

The Government intends to award up to three (3) Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type contracts, each with a minimum guarantee of one (1) Weapon System Component Package. The Government will select for award(s) the proposal(s) which represent the Best Value to the Government.

The source selection process for award will consist of two (2) evaluation phases, ending with a contract award to up to three (3) contractors, followed by a final down-selection to a single contractor for a new carbine. Offerors have 90 days from the issue date of this RFP to submit Phase I proposal requirements. Evaluation Phase I will consist of the evaluation of the weapon attributes of the Offeror’s hardware, evaluation of the Offeror’s facility production capability, and review of the Offeror’s cost/price proposal in accordance with the evaluation criteria contained in the solicitation. At the conclusion of Evaluation Phase I, the IC candidates which represent the best value, as determined by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will proceed into Phase II of the evaluation. Successful Offerors will be notified and given an additional 30 days to submit the remainder of the proposal requirements for Phase II evaluations. All other Offerors considered unsuccessful will be notified by the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) of their respective results and given an opportunity for a debriefing. All unsuccessful candidates from Evaluation Phase I will be eliminated from further consideration for award.

Evaluation Phase II will consist of specific hardware testing, as well as evaluation of the written technical proposal, management, cost/price, government purpose rights (GPR), fielding-operational and supportability impact and past performance, and small business participation volumes of the proposal in accordance with the evaluation criteria contained in the solicitation. At the completion of Evaluation Phase II, an award decision will occur that will result in the award of a firm-fixed price IDIQ contract for up to three (3) vendors entering the down-selection evaluation.

These three systems will further be down selected to a single weapon:

The weapon systems component package deliverables will be used for the final evaluation and final down-select to one (1) Awardee. The down-select evaluations will consist of a developmental test (DT), other DT test, the cost/price proposal, the GPR proposal and a limited user evaluation.

Furthermore, the solicitation considers an IC to consist of:

Individual Carbine

Each Individual Carbine shall include the following items:

- Carbine (Qty 1)
- Magazines (Quantity of magazines shall be sufficient to hold a minimum of 210 rounds)
- Cleaning Kit (Qty 1)
- Combat Sling (Qty 1)
- Additional Precision Match Grade Trigger Group (Qty 1)
- Blank Firing Adapter (Qty 1)
- Removable Back-up Sight (Qty 1)
- Operator Manual (Qty 1) (Section C.3.1.10.3)
- Optic 1x (If IC candidate is not compatible with M68 Close Combat Optic, provide equivalent 1x optic, 1 per carbine in
accordance with AR-PD-115: Sight, Reflex with Mount, M68)
- Optic 4x (If IC candidate is not compatible with M150 Rifle Combat Optic, provide equivalent 4x optic, 1 per carbine, in
accordance with Purchase Description, Telescope: XM150 Rifle Combat Optic (RCO) dated 17 August 2006)

Notice that the basic load remains 210 rounds. However, unlike SOCOM’s SCAR requirement, the Army has wisely not specified that the weapon must be compatible with the existing M16 30 round magazine. Therefore, they have specified that the offeror provide enough magazines per weapon to provide 210 loaded rounds. Could this telegraph the end of the 210 round basic load if a weapon with a new sized magazine is adopted? The 210 rounds is based as much on compatible convenience with the legacy magazine as anything else.

Interestingly, the solicitation only calls for the procurement of up to 178,890 units over seven years. That’s hardly enough guns to pure fleet the Army.

Classicly, the Army won’t release the real performance specs (as Jason pointed out) without a signed Non-Disclosure Agreement with the Government. Since there is ZERO reason for the Army to conceal the desired performance characteristics of their service rifle it means that someone is going to have to waste the taxpayers money to ask that it be released under the Freedom of Information Act. So much for the promised transparency in Government. This means there may well be a pause before the deluge of controversy begins on the interwebs.

[buglerbilly]

TEASER: A New Carbine in the M4 Mix

by Christian on August 4, 2011



It’s one of those weapons that’s been whispered about around the net. Some small company in Baltimore, Md., that makes M4 uppers for Colt has this weird weapon they say can compete in the Army’s improved carbine competition.

Who is this ADCOR company anyway and what’s the deal with the B.E.A.R? We’re running a story tomorrow morning at Military.com on the company’s initiative to unseat Colt’s M4 and here’s a quick preview of what we’ve got.


It was in 2005 that Jimmy Stavrakis received an order to make components for Colt’s M4 rifles as they were being fielded to units in Afghanistan and Iraq at a fever pitch. In just a few days, Stavrakis and his engineers at ADCOR Industries, Inc., had carved out precisely-made upper receiver components for the Army’s individual rifle.

But when officials came to inspect the parts, there was one small problem. Stavrakis and his team had printed the logo upside down – ADCOR, which until then specialized in making precision components for the beverage industry, had never seen a completely assembled M4.

“We made the uppers in less time than they thought we could, and the components were right to specification,” Stavrakis chuckled. “But we had no idea how they actually went on the rifle.”

Despite the mix-up, it didn’t take long for this small manufacturer based in an industrial section of Baltimore, Md., to find a way to make Colt’s design better. After several years of building many of the rifle’s parts for Colt, ADCOR’s engineers decided to take a whack at making their own carbine.

Well, Kit Up! had the chance to take a look at this new weapon first hand. And from the info we got at the manufacturer, there are some interesting components our readers might want to ponder.

First of all, the BEAR that’s being offered to the Army is a gas piston operating system rifle. There’s a lot of technical mumbo jumbo that goes over my head on their piston design, but company officials say it’s a better mouse trap than their competitors:
■ A newly designed vent cover houses the piston exhaust ports, which protects the operator from exhaust heat and cuts down on the weapon’s signature.
■ Mounting the piston on the underside of the rail system allows the barrel to float freely, ensuring greater accuracy of the weapon.
■ The lower half of the rail system detaches with a unique tool free design for ready access to the piston and gas tube for operational maintenance and cleaning. The operating system can be cleaned faster than the existing weapon’s cleaning routine.
■ The operator in the field can adjust the piston’s cyclical rate to keep the carbine operating within control rate of fire parameters, resulting in less wear on the carbine’s critical parts.
■ The piston design is machined with close tolerances so that gas rings are not needed, eliminating another potential maintenance issue for the weapon.

They also say they’ve eliminated something called “carrier tilt” with their piston rod design by attaching it in a certain way to the bolt carrier. I’d never heard of this but some of you might be able to comment on it. The design also incorporates something kind of cool that’s attached to the bolt carrier that cuts down on fouling in the chamber.


After a typical AR carbine fires, the weapon is susceptible to contaminants because the ejection port door remains open until it is manually closed. Dust, sand and debris can enter the receiver and work their way between the receiver and bolt, potentially jamming the carbine. These contaminants also create wear and maintenance issues.

Adcor’s design solves this problem with a spring-loaded dust cover mounted on the carbine’s bolt carrier. Each time the weapon fires and the bolt carrier returns to the ready position, the dust cover moves into the ejection port opening, flush with the outside geometry of the carbine. No dust, sand or debris can enter the weapon.

There is a biasing device, comprised of two springs, between the bolt carrier and the shield for biasing the shield outwardly away from the bolt carrier so that the dust cover shield continuously engages the inner surface of the receiver during movement in the firing and rearward positions.

The shield is formed of a self-lubricating polymeric material that can withstand extreme heat and cold, and is extremely durable.

It seemed like a pretty simple, no frills solution to a potentially big problem.

And lastly, the thing that makes the BEAR really different is that it also includes a forward charging handle.


Adcor’s design permits an operator to charge, clear or forward assist the weapon without losing any engagement with the target. The operator reaches forward and pulls back on a handle (which can be located on either side of the weapon for right or left handed operators) without losing sight of the target.

If the carbine jams, the same handle clears the carbine with a single pull. It is an easy-to-use single mechanism.

The handle is detachable (without tools) and is ambidextrous for use on either side of the weapon.

It is equipped with a spring that returns the handle to a locked position once used, where the handle folds forward into a recessed area to keep it out of the way. To use the handle again, the operator reaches forward, swings the handle outward and back in a single motion.

The handle does not reciprocate when the weapon fires, but only engages when the operator charges or clears the weapon.

We had a chance to shoot the BEAR at ADCOR’s indoor range and honestly, I’m easily impressed just because I like shooting any AR, really. It was really controllable and pretty accurate, but there seemed like a hell of a lot of heat up front after a couple mags.

The forward charging handle was nice to have and is low profile, so if you don’t need it, it’s like it’s not even there. But I can see how Army evaluators might look at that and turn their noses up.

Anyway, the folks at ADCOR couldn’t have been nicer and Mike Brown is just a down to Earth machine maker who saw a better way to do something and said “why not give it a try?” We’ll see how this whole program shakes out, but clearly ADCOR is offering something that’s unlike any others we know about.

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/2011/08/teaser-a-new-carbine-in-the-m4-mix.html#ixzz1U6ve8X5y
Kit Up!

[buglerbilly]

From Cans to Carbines, Making a Better M4

August 05, 2011

Military.com|by Christian Lowe



In 2005, Jimmy Stavrakis received an order to make components for Colt's M4 rifles as they were being rapidly fielded for units in Afghanistan and Iraq. In just a few days, Stavrakis and his engineers at ADCOR Industries Inc. had carved out precisely made upper receiver components for the Army's individual rifle.

But when officials came to inspect the parts, there was one small problem. Stavrakis and his team had printed the logo upside down. ADCOR, which until then mostly specialized in making precision components for the beverage industry, had never seen a completely assembled M4.

"We made the uppers in less time than they thought we could, and the components were right to specification," Stavrakis chuckled. "But we had no idea how they actually went on the rifle."

See video at link: http://www.military.com/news/article/from-cans-to-carbines-making-a-better-m4.html

Despite the mix-up, this small manufacturer based in an industrial section of Baltimore, Md., found a way to make Colt's design better. After several years of building many of the rifle's parts, ADCOR's engineers decided to take a whack at making their own carbine.

What they came up with is the Brown Enhanced Automatic Rifle, or BEAR. The BEAR is a piston-operated AR design that features a variety of internal enhancements, including a forward charging handle, a bolt carrier-mounted dust shield and a free floating barrel.

Company officials claim the BEAR -- named after ADCOR vice president Mike Brown who perfected many of the rifle's components -- addresses some of the concerns from lawmakers and Joes in the field over the M4's accuracy and malfunction problems in dusty environments.

"When we look at this weapon, what we see is another machine -- and it's a very simple machine for us in comparison to what we do for the bottling industry," Stavrakis said, explaining that some of his bottling machines have 20,000 parts and can fill 2,000 cans per minute.

"It's basically a giant Gatling gun," Stavrakis said.

The company plans to submit the rifle to the Army for the service's Improved Carbine competition, which could result in a wholesale replacement of the Colt-made M4.

An April 19 report from independent weapons testing firm HP White provided to Military.com by ADCOR shows that two of the carbines fired 6,000 rounds with no stoppages -- including 60 shots from a BEAR that had been submerged in water and buried in sand. The entire rifle, including the piston system, is designed to be disassembled and cleaned using a firing pin or rifle round.

Company officials say they've sold about 50 rifles to the Baltimore City police department, which called it in an October 2010 test report "an exciting and truly innovative weapons platform."

"We saw how much [the M4] has come under scrutiny on Capitol Hill and we took it upon ourselves as mechanical people to see if we could solve some of these problems," Stavrakis said.

© Copyright 2011 Military.com. All rights reserved.

[buglerbilly]

A series of videos showing this rifle, how its made and how it works..........

[buglerbilly]

Via Soldier Systems blog............

M4 Training Weapon

September 5th, 2011



FInding a quality inert training rifle can be difficult. Combat Training Aids, LLC builds some quality stuff that not only replicates weight and size, but to a certain degree, function as well. They over mold a full length steel barrel with a real flash suppressor on the end so you can attach a sound suppressor. The dummy weapon also includes aluminum NATO STANAG 4694 Accessory Rails that are fully backward compatible with MIL STD 1913 rails, grabbers, and mounts. The M4-STANAG comes standard with a 5 position collapsible stock but can be manufactured with any available 1.185 in Mil Spec stock of your choice. They are available in a variety of colors.

www.combattrainingaids.com

[buglerbilly]

Via Soldier Systems blog.............

NBOW Range Day – H&K

September 8th, 2011

I am attending the New Breed of Warrior range day at US Training Center in Moyock, NC.

H&K demo’d several weapons including the USMC’s new M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle. Here you can see the weapon with most of the issue accessories. The backup sights will be swapped out for the KAC micro sight and the Marines have asked for a slight modification to the butt stock. The latch for removal of the pad will be changed in order to make it more difficult to remove. This way it won’t accidentally be removed.



Additionally, H&K unveiled their new HK169 Grenade Launcher. Designed to replace the HK69 stand alone GL, it takes the US Army issue M320 and strips the sights off the top in favor of a rail. Additionally, it integrates the side folding stock from the G36. These changes save about 1.5 lbs. When the stock is removed almost another pound can be shaved from the weight.





www.HK-USA.com

[buglerbilly]

Via the Firearm blog........

Royal Netherlands Army’s Nifty C7/C8 Rifles

Royal Netherlands Army have given their Colt Canada C7 rifles and C8 carbines a few tacti-cool upgrades.



The upgrades include a nifty tan-colored bolted on rifle-length rail extension, tan-colored CAA Tactical buttstock, oversized magazine release, ambidextrous safety selector switch, freefloated lightweight profile barrels and Aimpoint scopes. They get bonus points for a two-tone color scheme over the boring all-black color scheme used by all the other AR-15 military users worldwide.




[ Many thanks to jdun1911 for emailing me the link. ]

[ADMk2]

Via Soldier Systems blog.............
NBOW Range Day – H&K

When the stock is removed almost another pound can be shaved from the weight.

Sweet a one handed 40mm grenade launcher! It'd be just like Arnie from Terminator 2! I wonder if it would be as accurate?

:g7

[buglerbilly]

Perhaps Instructors have changed over the years but I don't reasonably know of any that would recommend firing one-handed, only dickhead salesmen............................

[buglerbilly]

Combat Application Tools, Inc. C.A.T. M-4 Tool

September 25th, 2011 | Hasty Review Photo Recon Review | Posted by Stickman





The Combat Application Tools, Inc. C.A.T. M-4 Tool is one of those rare items that makes you wonder why someone hadn’t already invented it. The images below show how simple this tool is, and how easy it is to use. The two largest benefits I saw were on each end of the tool. The ability to plug the tail of a M16 Bolt into this tool and get it clean in a few twists is fantastic, and by flipping it over the interior of the Bolt Carrier is quick work as well. Other features include a patch holder for swabbing the inside of the Bolt Carrier, a bit driver mounting point, and a cleaning section for the firing pin.

Combat Application Tools, Inc. backs this tool with a 100% money back guarantee, and lifetime replacement. The CATM-4 tool is made of Stainless Steel, is 3.5 inches long, weighs 1.4 ounces, and is available in 5.56 and 7.62 sizes.

This tool is not designed to scrub everything 100% perfectly clean, but we found it knocks off the vast majority of carbon very quickly, and saves us a good chunk of time. This is a simple and effective cleaning tool that I can recommend for Military, Law Enforcement, or anyone else who actually shoots their M4/ AR15s. It just plain works, and for a tool made in the USA costing under $30, you can’t go wrong with this one.

[buglerbilly]

Via the Firearm blog...........

SIG M400 Direct Gas Impingement Carbines

Because of popular demand Sig Sauer has developed a line of Direct Gas Impingement AR-15s to complement their line of SIG 516 piston-operated ARs.


SIG M400

The SIG M400 features a SIG 516 lower receiver with it ambidextrous magazine release, rear quick-detach sling mount and tensioning device that ensures a tight lockup between the lower and upper receivers. The upper is a standard M4-style upper receiver. The enhanced model features Magpul OEM stock, pistol grip and handguard.


SIG M400 Enhanced

Specifications

Caliber - 5.56m NATO

Capacity - 30 rounds

Barrel - 16" M4 profile

Twist - 1:7

Overall Length - 34.6"

Weight - 5.65 lbs

Front Sight - Post

Rear Sight - Carry Handle

Trigger pull - 7.6 lbs

MSRP (Price) - $1065 (standard model)

Availability - Shipping now

[buglerbilly]

MDM 2011: M27 contract awarded by USMC

September 28, 2011



The M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR) 5.56 mm machine gun, a variant of the Heckler & Koch (HK) HK416, has been officially selected by the USMC to replace the M249 light machine guns currently employed by riflemen within Infantry and Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalions.

The award of a Full Rate Production contract on 15 September was made after the successful conclusion of a Limited User Trial of the M27 by the USMC this summer. The service is planning to purchase between 4,500 and 6,500 IARs to replace some 2,000 M249s currently in use. A company official told Shephard that the current contract is for 3,638 weapons.

The IAR programme began in 2001 as a 'needs statement' within the USMC. Operational experience in Iraq and Afghanistan reinforced the requirement for a magazine-fed 5.56 mm automatic rifle designed to be operated by a single marine and possessing greater accuracy, increased reliability, and lighter weight than the existing belt-fed 5.56 mm machine gun.

After an assessment looking at the offers of six companies including FN USA and Colt, HK was selected to provide a variant of the HK416 in mid-2010 for test and evaluation. The company was awarded a Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) order for approximately 500 systems for initial training, limited fielding, and selected marine infantry unit/user assessments, which it delivered in November 2010.

The M27 has a 10.4 inch barrel, a Trijicon ACOG 3.5x35 Squad automatic-weapon Day Optic with R.M.R. and LaRue tactical quick detachable mount, and 11-inch quad one-piece Picatinny free floating rail system.

The M27 uses an HK proprietary gas system instead of the normal gas impingement system (gas tube) found on most M4/M16-type weapons. The HK system employs a piston driving an operating rod to control the function of the bolt, preventing propellant gases and the associated carbon fouling from entering the weapon’s interior. This increases the reliability of the weapon, reduces operator cleaning time, minimises heat transfer to the bolt and bolt carrier; and lessens wear and tear on critical components.

Darren Lake, Quantico

[buglerbilly]

Bundeswehr criticises 'old-fashioned' weaponry

September 28, 2011



In light of current operations, the German Army is continuing to develop its weaponry in order to be able to contend with this 'very dangerous' environment, a military official has revealed.

Speaking at the Future Mortar Systems conference in London on 27 September, Captain Maximilian Gleixner, small arms development officer for the German Army's Infantry Future Developments Section, said that current enemies are using old-fashioned weaponry, including 'roughly aimed rockets, artillery and mortars', and are switching between short and long engagements.

'Small arms fire has become a problem over the last two years,' he continued, with the army having to challenge this threat because it has no control over the situation because of the 'asymmetric opponent'.

'The G36 is and will be the basic weapon of the German Army', Gleixner said of the Heckler & Koch gas-operated assault rifle that has been operational with the Bundeswehr since 1997. Despite being a reliable, low-weight and easy to operate system, it has developed an improved G36 A2 variant, based on feedback from the user, Gleixner explained.

The optics on the G36 are 'no longer state of the art, especially at greater distances', and 'there is no back up sight, for example IR'.

The scope is also too high above the bore, resulting in reduced precision, and it is 'not so great at distances beyond 300m', he conceded.

As a result, the latest variant which is the version used in Afghanistan by German troops, has a picatinny rail on the scope that facilitates the replacement of the optics system, and the Bundeswehr is working on a flat access rail for mounting optics.

The G36 basic weapon with enhancements such as an adjustable shoulder stock, aluminium casing, and an improved muzzle fire suppressor, is currently being tested.

The G3A3 DMR has been deployed to Afghanistan as part of a UOR, and contains a blocked burst function for a more precise shot, and functions at some 600m.



Beth Stevenson, London

[ADMk2]

Perhaps Instructors have changed over the years but I don't reasonably know of any that would recommend firing one-handed, only dickhead salesmen............................

That was my point... Without a stock you'd only be able to fire that thing two handed like a pistol or one handed, which would be a very "interesting" experience, firing a round with as much recoil as a 40mm bomb.

Not interesting in a good way, obviously...

[buglerbilly]

Pat Rogers talks up his EAG/BCM Carbine

October 3rd, 2011 | Product Announcement video | Posted by Rob Curtis


Uploaded by BravoCompanyUSA on Oct 3, 2011
Pat Rogers gives a brief introduction to the EAG Tactical Carbine, built by BCM.
Available for purchase at http://www.BravoCompanyUSA.com
Read more at http://www.BravoCompanyMFG.com/carbines/custom.php
Pat Rogers himself takes the lid off his collaboration with Bravo Company Manufacturing and talks a little about the new mid-length EAG Tactical carbine. The $1995 gun (or $1225 upper) was introduced last month and the HUGE feature list is on the jump.

E.A.G. Tactical Carbine Package Includes:

• BCM 14.5″ Mid Length Gas BFH (Cold Hammer Forged) Barrel (w/ perm A2X Flash Hider)
• Special Edition E.A.G. Serial Number Series
• E.A.G. Logo Laser Etched on Front Magwell and Upper Receiver
• LaRue Tactical 9″ Tactical Free Float Handguards
• TangoDown SCAR Panel Covers (qty 3)
• TangoDown QD Vertical Grip-K
• TangoDown Battle Grip
• TangoDown PR#4 Sling Mount
• Vltor USGI QD Front Swivel
• Magpul Enhanced Trigger Guard
• Magpul MOE Stock
• Troy Ind/BCM Rear Folding Battle Sight
• VTAC Padded Sling
• VTAC Light Mount
• SureFire G2 LED
• BCM Magazine w/ Magpul Follower
• Slip2000 EWL & 725
• $200 Certificate toward training with E.A.G. Tactical (Some Restrictions Apply)
Available with Black or Flat Dark Earth furniture.

BCM E.A.G. Carbines will feature:

• BCMGUNFIGHTER Mod 3 Charging Handle
• BCM Mid Length Gas System
• M4 Feed Ramp Barrel Extension
• M4 Feed Ramp Flat Top Receiver
• T-Marked Upper Receivers
• USGI 5.56mm NATO Chambers
• Independently Certified Mil-Spec 11595E Barrel Steel
• Chrome Lined Bore and Chamber
• Manganese Phosphate Barrel Finish on entire barrel
• Mil-Spec F-Marked Forged Front Sights
• Taper Pinned Front Sight Base
• USGI Government Profile Barrels
• HPT (High Pressure Test, per Milspec) Barrels
• MPI (Magnetic Particle Inspected, per Milspec) Barrels
• Bolt machined from Mil-Spec Carpenter No. 158 steel
• HPT Bolt (High Pressure Tested/ Proof)
• MPI Bolt (Magnetic Particle Inspected)
• Shot Peened Bolt
• Chrome Lined Carrier (AUTO)
• Chrome Lined Gas Key
• Gas Key Hardened to USGI Specifications
• Grade 8 Hardened Fasteners Key
• Staked Per Mil-Spec
• Tool Steel Extractor
• BCM Extractor Spring
• Black Extractor Insert
• Receivers Machined from Aluminum Forgings 7075-T6
• Receivers Hardcoat Anodize per MIL-A-8625F, Type III, Class 2
• BCM Milspec 7075-T6 Receiver Extension
• USGI Mold M4 Stock Staked M4 Lock Nut
• USGI H Buffer (1 USGI Tungsten, 2 Steel)
• Magpul MOE Enhanced Trigger Guard
• Low Shelf for RDIAS installation
• Low Shelf for Accuwedge use
• Un-notched Hammer compatible with 9mm use
• Fire Controls marked SAFE and SEMI

[buglerbilly]

Via the Firearm blog...............

Franklin Armory XO-26b: Has Franklin Hacked the NFA?



Franklin Armory is producing a weird AR-15 they call the XO-26. It is essentially a Short Barreled Rifle with a vertical foregrip and no stock. What is especially interesting is that the BATFE don't consider it a SBR (Short Barreled Rifle) or a AOW (All Other Weapon) therefore is needs no special NFA paperwork to purchase and own. If it was classified as a pistol, like all other short barreled pistol-type AR-15s, using a forward vertical grip would be illegal. I can see other AR-15 pistol makers jumping on this BATFE ruling and producing their own quasi-pistol AR-15s.

Barrel:
Chambered in 5.56 NATO
Salt Bath Nitride Finish (60 Rockwell Hardness)
11.5" Barrel Length
4140 Chrome Moly Steel Construction
1/7 Twist
Picatinny Single Rail Gas Block
A2 Flash Hider

Upper Receiver:
A4 Flat Top with Full Picatinny Rail
Forged 7075-T6 Aluminum
Hard Coat Type III Anodized Black
Black Magpul MOE Handguard
Black Magpul RVG Vertical Grip
Young Manufacturing Bolt Carrier Group
Forward Assist

Lower Receiver:
Forged 7075-T6 Aluminum
Hard Coat Type III Anodized Black
Specialized Tension Screw
Bullet Button™ Magazine Release installed on XO's sold where required.
Standard Magazine Release installed on XO's sold where legally eligible.
Delrin Magazine Well Plug*
Custom Trigger Work
Padded Receiver Extension (AKA Buffer Tube)
Black Magpul MIAD Grip

Additional Features:
Thorough Safety Manual & Ca Certified Lock
Mil-Spec Upper/Lower Components
Tactical Soft Side Carrying Case
Weight: 6.4 Pounds
Length: 27.8 Inches

The XO-26b has a MSRP of $1149.99.


Uploaded by franklinarmory on Jul 12, 2011
This video demonstrates how to index, shoot, and transition with your Franklin Armory XO-26.


Uploaded by franklinarmory on Jul 12, 2011
The video demonstrates the recoil a operater will perceive while shooting the XO-26 in 5.56 NATO, 7.62x39, and 450 Bushmaster. The 5.56 is great for populated areas where overpenetration is problematic. The 7.62 is a great balance between power and recoil management. With over 1300 FPE, the XO-26 in 7.62 is capable of taking down any game that a 30-30 has been used on. And lastly, the XO in 450 Bushmaster is the upper limit of recoil tollerance for most people. A 250 grain slug travelling at 2000 FPS packs quite a wallop!


Uploaded by franklinarmory on Jul 12, 2011
This demonstration shows the relative power of the XO-26 in 5.56, 7.62, and 450 BM. Please also note the recoil of each caliber as Ryan tests each weapon.

[ Many thanks to Samopal for emailing me the link. ]

[buglerbilly]

Via the Firearm blog.............

[Guest Post] The Canadian Forces C7A2 Upgrade

[ This guest post was written by CanadianSoldier ]

The M-16 rifle is one of the most iconic firearms of all time, becoming well-known as the standard service weapon of the United States and its allies. But few know about the M-16's close relative, the Canadian-made C7 rifle and C8 carbine, which is in service with the armed forces of Canada, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, and the Netherlands.


Canadian soldiers equipped with the C7A2 rifle

The C7 rifle in Canadian service has gone through several updates, similar to the progress of the M-16 in US service. The rifle entered service with the Canadian Army in the early 1980s as a replacement for the FN-FAL (FN-C1 in Canadian service) rifle at the conclusion of the Small Arms Replacement Program (SARP). They were produced in Canada by Diemaco, under license from Colt. Diemaco has since been bought out by Colt, and is now known as Colt Canada.

The original rifle, the C7 in Canadian service, was essentially an M-16A2 with a few changes. The C7 had an M-16A1 profile carry handle, is capable of fully-automatic fire, and had a cold hammer forged barrel. Diemaco also produced a proprietary M-203 40mm grenade launcher mount for the C7 family, which came as a replacement for the lower handguard.


C7A1 with Diemaco M203 lower handguard. The M203's iron sight can be mounted on the left or right-hand side of the handguard to suit the operator. It can be seen to the top left of the photo.

C7s were initially issued with Thermold plastic magazines, intended to be discarded on the battlefield after use. However, the Thermold magazines were being re-used and led to malfunctions due to excessive wear. Eventually they were replaced in service by NATO-standard steel magazines.

In 1990, the C7 was superseded in Canadian service by the C7A1, which incorporated a new, railed upper receiver. The new receiver incorporated a weaver-style rail with 14 slots (a Mil-Std 1913 rail has 13 slots). C7A1s were issued with an Elcan C79 3.4x optic and a plastic backup iron sight. C7A1s were also given the Accu-Wedge, which was meant to make the receivers close up tighter to improve accuracy. With the C79 sight in service, marksmanship scores increased significantly, and the shooting qualification tests were revised as a result. The C79 is nitrogen-purged, with a tritium aiming point to give an aiming reference in low light conditions. Adjustments for windage and elevation are done externally via the scope mount.


A Canadian soldier firing a C7A1 on the range. Most C7A1s are not issued with the plastic BUIS, unless CQB training is taking place

Both the C7 and C7A1 had a fixed stock, and a slightly shorter stock was available for smaller-framed soldiers. Around the year 2000, the Army decided to begin a midlife update for the C7A1 to address some shortcomings with the platform. Although the C7A1 had served well in a number of theatres, feedback had been collected and some issues were highlighted.

Complaints were focused on the bulk of the rifle, especially when operating from vehicles, as well as an inability to easily mount accessories. In Kosovo, some units were given the KAC M5 RAS for evaluation. These were well-received by the soldiers, but as a cost-cutting measure, the M5 RAS was not incorporated into the final C7A2 design. Complaints were also levelled at the C79 sight, which had a tendency to lose zero due to a poorly designed mount. A number of drop-in changes would be added to make the rifle more ambidextrous for left-handed soldiers.


A Canadian soldier with C7A2. Note the 4-position stock, green-coloured C79A2 sight, Cadex vertical grip and TRI-AD mount

The C7A2 is created in batches from C7A1s that are sent back to Colt Canada for the service. Regular Force army units were the first to receive the -A2s, with units going overseas getting priority. From there, Army Reserve units in the Combat Arms (Infantry, Armour, Engineers and Artillery) would receive them. It's unclear at this point whether all C7A1s will be given the update Army-wide. Navy units still use the C7, and it's unlikely they will receive the upgrade.

This is a list of changes made to the C7A1 to create the C7A2:

Upper receiver gets re-blued, with a new barrel and front sight gas block + tube assembly.

Charging handle replaced with a 'tactical' model designed to be easier for left-handed soldiers to operate
Black handguards are replaced with green-coloured ones with new aluminium heat shields to replace worn-out ones.

A removable Mil-Std 1913 rail attachment system called TRI-AD (TRIple Aiming Device) is mounted under the front sight, directly on the barrel.

Lower receiver gets a carbine-length recoil buffer tube, along with a green-coloured 4-position buttstock.

Black pistol grip is changed for a green-coloured model, some come with an Otis GripKit.

A sling attachment point is added to the left side of the receiver end plate.

A Diemaco-branded ambidextrous magazine release button is added to the lower receiver, identical to the Norgon Ambi-Catch.

An ambidextrous fire-selector switch is added to the lower receiver.

The C79 sight is replaced with the C79A2 model, which incorporates green-coloured rubber instead of black, as well as a new mount. The mount incorporates a spring designed to reduce zero shift issues.

A new bayonet is issued with each C7A2, made by Eickhorn-Sollingen, to replace the Nella bayonet. The new bayonet includes a scabbard with integrated sharpening stone. The scabbard and bayonet are designed to lock together through a lug, to enable the bayonet to cut wire.

To take advantage of the TRI-AD, infantry soldiers are usually issued with a laser aiming device / illuminator, such as the AN/PEQ-2 or AN/PAQ-4, in addition to an Insight M3X weapon light. Rifles are also occasionally issued a drop-in Picatinny rail kit to mount a Cadex folding vertical grip.


C7A2 showing the Elcan C79 optical sight and the plastic BUIS mounted in front. This C7A2 does not have the revised charging handle


A Canadian soldier in Afghanistan. His C7A2 has an AN/PAQ-4, Insight M3X, and Cadex vertical grip mounted. Note the additional Picatinny rail on top of the upper handguard.

[ Many thanks to CanadianSoldier for writing this interesting article. ]

[buglerbilly]

$8 Million to Upgrade the AUSteyr Rifle

(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued October 13, 2011)

The Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare today announced the next stage of the project to update the Austeyr rifle used by Australian soldiers.

“This $8 million investment will produce a qualified rifle design ready for production,” Mr Clare said.

Changes to the Austeyr rifle will include:

-- A new modular design that reduces the weight and improves the balance of the weapon;
-- The integration of NATO standard (Picatinny) rails to allow for a wide range of military off-the-shelf attachments to be fitted to the weapon to provide the flexibility to reconfigure the weapon according to the mission; and
-- The integration of a grenade launcher attachment and grenade launcher sight into the rifle.

“The Austeyr rifles that our troops use are very effective. This project is about making them even better.”

The bulk of the work will be done by the highly skilled workforce at the Soldier Systems Centre in Lithgow, New South Wales. Rifles have been made at this site for the Australian Defence Force for the past 99 years.

This is a component of the $448.6 million LAND 125 Phase 3C program.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Via Soldier Systems blog...........

RCMP Adopts C8 Carbine

October 23rd, 2011

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have finally adopted the C8 carbine which is a variant of the M4 manufactured by Colt Canada after four Mounties were killed six years ago in Alberta. These aren’t the first carbines issued to Law Enforcement Canada as they are already in use by the RCMP’s Emergency Reaction Teams as well as other tactical units. Rather, this deployment is much more like the adoption of patrol carbines within US LE to react to an increasingly armed criminal element. Unfortunately, the RCMP is only purchasing 375 carbines and will have to determine the basis of issue.

In addition to the new weapons, the RCMP announced earlier this year the purchase of 6,800 improved bulletproof vests with full deployment by April 1, 2013.

This is the standard C8 package.



1 – Reduced length cold hammer forged heavy barrel
2 – Flash suppressor
3 – Bayonet lug
4 – TRI-AD 1TM MIL-STD-1913 accessory mount
5 – Special carbine chamber and gas system
6 – Accepts all STANAG magazines
7 – Integrated sight rail (Weaver or Picatinny)
8 – Optional ambidextrous controls
9 – Single or double sided sling loop
10 – Standard 4 position buttstock with no slip rubber butt pad

[buglerbilly]

Breakdown: M27 IAR vs. HK416

By: Rob Curtis

24-10-2011

Video here: http://bcove.me/m7oxp4hp


Heckler & Koch M27 IAR. The biggest and most obvious difference is the 11" handguard. The HK416 runs a 9" handguard.


Heckler & Koch M27 IAR

Here’s a quick video showing the differences between the USMC spec’d M27 IAR and the HK416 and its compatibility with aftermarket magazines. First, there’s a little confusion about the IAR variant being considerably different than the HK416. As you’ll see, the differences are minimal. There’s no heavier barrel and the internals are identical to the HK416D. The IAR is pretty much a 16.5″ HK416D with a bunch of accessories required by the Corps. Run through the gallery below for a closer look at some of the differences and unique features common to the HK416 and the M27 IAR.

Second, there’s a question of what mags work in the gun. While I didn’t get to full function check the mags in the gun, rumors about the Surefire HCM not fitting are wrong. You can see both Surefire mags fit and fall free with no issues. I haven’t shot the 100 rounder yet, but we’ve heard the 60 rounder runs fine. Surefire’s official response is that they didn’t design the mag to work with the gun, although they have heard some samples fitting in the HK416 and some not.

I’m hoping to get some range time with the gun and a set of mags in the next couple of weeks to see how reliably the Surefire HCMs function in the HK416.


The IAR will not have these HK416D markings, or the quaint reminder to read the directions.


The M27 IAR bayonet lug is separate from the gas block and moved toward the muzzle to accommodate the 11" handguard.


The M27 IAR comes with MantaRails handgaurd rail covers with internal wire routing.


The Marines spec'd a reversible charging handle for the M27 IAR. The latch can be moved to the opposite side by an armorer.


The Marines required BUIS, despite it's use of a reticle optic. It's hard to break some habits.


The Marines required BUIS, despite it's use of a reticle optic. It's hard to break some habits.


The HK416 & M27 IAR chamber has a round lug positioned over the extractor to shore up what is traditionally the weakest point of the AR bolt design. This feature is designed for maritime operations.

More pics can be seen at the link:

http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/2011/10/24/whats-the-diff-between-the-m27-iar-and-the-hk416/#more

[buglerbilly]

I still don't understand why they appear to not want drum or high capacity magazines, at least in small numbers for each Gunner.............??? I know all about the higher accuracy and lightweight package BUT................

[buglerbilly]

Syrac Ordnance Adjustable Low Pro Gas Block

By: Stickman

27-10-2011

Product Announcement







Syrac Ordnance sent us one of its new adjustable, low-profile gas blocks, designed for the AR15 family of weapons a few months back. We’ve been sitting on this waiting for a chance to get it built and take it shooting. Since it seems we keep getting sidetracked with other projects at the range, we’ll show the adjustable gas block now and write up something else once we get a chance to get enough rounds down range with it in the future.

The Syrac Ordnance Adjustable Low Profile Gas Block is manufactured of 416SS, and Melonite finished for durability. The barrel diameter is 0.750”, and the gas block weighs in at 1.72 ounces with a height of 1.342” which should make it low enough to fit under just about any AR15 rail we’ve seen. Installation is straightforward, and attachment is done via set screws. For those people who don’t feel a set screw installation is enough, you could drill and pin it yourself, though the Melonite finish may mean you need a nice sharp bit.





Why would you want an adjustable gas block? The answer is really pretty simple. If you like tailoring your weapon for various ammo loads, this will do it for you. Shooting weak ammunition or extra hot ammo creates reliability issues, primarily from either too much or too little gas to run the weapon properly. While I will make the mandatory PSA that shooting ammo which is excessively overpowered or too weak can create safety problems, I think anyone reading this should be smart enough to understand that already. The adjustable gas block allows you to tailor the gas setting, which creates a softer shooting weapon allowing for faster follow up shots. For my guys who have carried, fired or played around with a variety of military weapons outside of the M4/ AR15, this is a feature you are already familiar with. In fact, the idea of an adjustable gas block goes way back and was seen before 1947 where it appeared on the FN FAL.

Use of the Syrac Ordnance Adjustable Low Profile Gas Block involves test firing the weapon with your desired ammunition and adjusting the set screw on the front of the block. Pressing in the detent allows the set screw to turn freely as well as lock it in place when it is no longer depressed. With a properly clean and lubed weapon, insert one round into your magazine and fire. With the gas block wide open, the weapon will shoot softer — but will not cycle properly — and will not lock the bolt to the rear on an empty weapon. Continue to tighten the gas block set screw until the weapon reliably locks to the rear after the last round has been fired from the magazine.

The Syrac Ordnance Adjustable Low Profile Gas Block has a street price of $99, and is available through http://www.mountsplus.com

[buglerbilly]

Marines Won't Follow Army's Lead on new Carbine

November 17, 2011

Military.com|by Matthew Cox



The Marine Corps will not follow the Army if it selects a replacement for its M4 carbine but instead will settle on improving its fleet of M16A4s and M4s, acquisition officials told lawmakers Wednesday.

South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson asked about the Corps’ carbine plans at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.

“Does the Marine Corps plan to procure a new carbine to replace the M4 or M16 and what is the Marine Corps’s current and future strategy for a new small arms weapon?” asked Wilson, whose district includes gun-maker FN Manufacturing LLC, a contender in the Army’s improved carbine competition.

In June, the Army invited vendors to submit proposals for off-the-shelf carbines that could replace the M4, made by Colt Defense LLC. Senior Army leaders first announced a plan to hold a competition for a new carbine in November 2008, in the face of congressional scrutiny over the service’s devotion to the M4 in spite of its shortcomings.

The Marines, however, have decided they have no plans to spend money on a new individual weapon.

“There is no replacement for the [M4] carbine,” said Brig. Gen. Daniel O'Donohue, director of the Capabilities Development Directorate, Combat Development and Integration for the Marine Corps.

“We have looked hard at our infantry weapons, and there are several aspects of it -- How do you train the Marine? What ammunition do you use? And the weapon itself,” O’Donohue said. “We believe the most cost-proficient means of meeting our profile is a product improvement to the M16A4.”

The M4 carbine is a shortened version of the M16 family, but uses the same operating system -- a direct gas tube system, which cycles the weapon using the gas created inside the barrel when a bullet is fired. The system blows hot gases mixed with carbon residue into the firing mechanism, drying up lubrication and causing extreme wear and tear on internal parts.

Many modern carbines rely on a piston-style gas system, which uses the weapon’s gas to push a piston rod to cycle the weapon — instead of blowing it directly through the receiver.

The Marine Corps’ new M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle is a version of the piston-driven Heckler and Koch 416 -- one of three piston guns that outperformed the M4 in a November 2007 Army reliability test.

Marine officials did say they have considered the possibility of the M27 as a future individual weapon, but for now are satisfied with making improvements to current weapons.

Marine infantry squads will replace their M249 light machine gun with the highly accurate M27 beginning February 2012, said Brig. Gen. Frank Kelley, commander Marine Corps Systems Command.

Earlier this year, the Corps fielded more than 450 M27s to five infantry battalions headed for Afghanistan.

“A few have already fielded in Afghanistan in a limited quantity to get our Marines’ assessment, and it’s performing exceptionally well,” Kelly said, adding that the Marines should finish fielding more than 4,000 M27s in April 2013.

© Copyright 2011 Military.com. All rights reserved.

[buglerbilly]

Via the Firearm blog............

S&W pulls out of Carbine Competition

S&W has pulled out of the Army's next generation carbine competition. Army Times reports ...


Smith & Wesson’s M&P 4 is another strong competitor that has backed out for financial reasons. Company officials were confident they had a shot at the contract. But research and development cost a chunk of change, and the competition is drawn out over three years with no guarantee of payoff. Smith & Wesson decided the better financial strategy would be to focus on existing sales and walk away from the carbine competition.

This decision makes sense. The M&P carbines are nice AR-15s but they don't have any major distinguishing features.

Colt says they are entering the Colt CM901 because they do not want to reveal trade secrets to competitors. This sounds dubious to me. The Army is not looking for multi-caliber capability, so the slightly bulkier 7.62mm capable Colt CM901 would be at a disadvantage against lighter 5.56mm-only competitors. Colt is instead entering their Enhanced M4 carbine. Ironically, Canada had to cancel a weapons purchase last month after the firearm industry refused to hand over technical specifications to Colt's Canadian subsidiary.

[ Many thanks to Jason & Lance for emailing me the link. ]

[buglerbilly]

Via the Firearm blog.............

Colt LE6920MP with Magpul MOE Accessories

Colt Defense is the latest AR-15 maker to offer a rifle shipped from the factory with Magpul MOE accessories. The LE6920MP is a Colt 6920 with a MOE vertical grip (MVG), MOE hand guard, Magpul MBUS rear sight, MOE-K hand grip, MOE trigger guard, MOE stock and two 30-round Magpul PMAGs.



Colt will offer models with Magpul furniture in black, flat dark earth and olive drab. The LE6920MPG-B features green anodized receivers and Magpul furniture in black.

[buglerbilly]

Via the Firearm blog.............

Navy to buy additional FN SCAR Mk. 13, Mk 16, Mk. 17 and Mk. 20

The Navy has announced its intention to buy additional FN SCAR Mk. 16 (5.56mm), Mk. 17 (7.62mm) and Mk. 20 (SSR / Sniper Support Rifle) along with FN Mk. 13 grenade launchers in order to sustain inventory levels.









From Solicitation Number N0016412RJN25 ...


The Government intends to procure Combat Assault Rifles (CAR) and Enhanced Grenade Launcher Modules (EGLM). The weapon systems consist of MK16 Mod 0 (CAR-L), MK17 Mod 0 (CAR-H), MK20 Mod 0 (SSR), MK13 Mod 0 (40mm EGLM), PPL and engineering services. The requirements are in accordance with a government statement of work and technical product specifications. These items have been determined to be non-commercial and intended to fulfill a sustainment of modular weapons.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code for this procurement is 332994. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division intends to enter into a Firm Fixed Price, IDIQ (5-year) type contract. The contract will be F.O.B. Destination with Inspection and Acceptance by DCMA Northern Europe. This anticipated procurement will be solicited on a sole source basis with FN Herstal SA, Rue Voie De Liege 33, 4040 Herstal, Belgium, CAGE: N0017, in accordance with FAR 6.302-1 only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.

[ Many thanks to Rijoenpial for emailing us the tip. ]

[buglerbilly]

Curiousity photograph................Via the Firearm blog..............there has to be a song in this...........

Polish Commandoes Try The Tavor

It is not everyday that I receive a photo of a Polish commando, armed with a Tavor rifle, in tropical jungles.



Last month India's Counter Insurgency and Jungle Warfare School (CIJWS) school held a joint Indo-Polish special forces exercise in the jungles of Mizoram.

[ Many thanks to Danny for emailing us the link. ]

[Milne Bay]

My first thought was:
Tropic Thunder

Me? I know who I am. I'm a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude.

[buglerbilly]

Skeptics Wary of Ex-Army Chief's Gun-maker Role

December 22, 2011

Military.com|by Matthew Cox



Former Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey, who oversaw the service’s effort to replace the Colt M4 carbine, now helps manage the famous Connecticut-based gun maker.

On Dec. 1, Casey, who retired from the Army after serving as the 36th chief of staff from 2007 until 2011, became a member of the governing board of Colt Defense LLC.

The news has ignited discussion across the blogosphere and raised concerns on Capitol Hill over the potential influence Casey could wield over the outcome of the Army’s long-awaited carbine competition.

“We don’t want to rush to judgment, but it does raise troubling questions,” said John Hart, communications director for Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, who played a significant role in the Army’s decision launch its improved carbine effort.

Casey’s position on Colt’s board is an example of “a pattern of behavior we see throughout the military and government when high-ranking officials end up working for a particular interest,” Hart said.

Another top lawmaker, Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, also voiced his concern in a floor speech in mid-December about what he called the “revolving door” between the Pentagon and the defense industry.

McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that the ease with which high-ranking military officers move into jobs with major defense contractors is “a real threat to the public interest because it increases the chances of abuse.”

Casey could not be reached for comment, despite attempts to contact him through Army Public Affairs.

“Gen. Casey's election to the Colt Defense governing board will not influence the Army’s decision-making in purchasing a new carbine,” said Army spokesman Matthew Bourke. “The Army carbine competition is a fair, full and open competition intended to determine the most effective, accurate, and reliable individual weapon available for the soldier.”

Gerry Dinkel, president and CEO of Colt Defense, told Military.com that Casey “of course isn’t going to have any interface back with the Army on our behalf.”

Casey will be involved in decisions that affect strategic planning, not company-level business decisions such as bidding on a military contract, Dinkel said.

“Strategic planning gets into, ‘Are we going to go into another line of business [or] long-term strategy,” Dinkel said. “Bidding on any program is a tactical decision.”

As a board member, Casey will receive financial compensation, Dinkel said, but he said he could not recall the specific amount.
Former Army Secretary Pete Geren first announced a plan to hold a competition for a new carbine in November 2008, but it took about three years for the service to actually launch the formal competition.

“It took a lot of pushing to get to that point; I found it to be one of my greater frustrations,” Geren told Military.com. “In all of my early meetings there was tremendous resistance … changing anything is so darn hard.”

Geren said Casey never showed any signs of resistance to the improved carbine effort and is confident that he “will conduct himself in a highly professional manner.”

Army insiders, however, say that Casey struggled with change -- that his campaign of silence on the carbine effort only encouraged the Army acquisition and requirements communities to resist Geren’s directive for as long as they could.

Geren – who is now the president of Sid W. Richardson Foundation, a Texas-based organization that provides grants to nonprofit organizations for education, healthcare and human services efforts – still believes launching the carbine effort was “the right thing to do.”

“I feel strongly and felt strongly that we need a full and open competition and a process that sought out the best carbine,” Geren said. “If it’s the M4, great … I did not care about the outcome, but I knew that enough questions had been raised, enough issues had been raised and I knew enough about the alternatives that were out there that we could do better.”

© Copyright 2011 Military.com. All rights reserved.

[buglerbilly]

Full Auto: Battlefield Necessity or A Waste of Ammo?

by Matthew Cox on December 29, 2011



I'm astonished that the US Forces are still going thru this discussion? It's all seemingly influenced by the BS of the Vietnam war where the mostly-conscript troops would often randomly spray-and-pray BUT, as my Uncle (a senior NCO with 3 tours there) and Nam Vet friends in later years, it was predominantly up to the poor discipline in some units. Certainly the better units did not allow this approach under threat of severe discipline, and they enforced this! Some of the comments to this article and the one at Mil.com are ludicrous..............the professional troops now are far superior to the Nam-era conscripts when it comes to fire discipline, etc.............

Even if the Army does nothing more to improve the M4, the service should be applauded for its decision to dump the three-round burst setting. It’s ineffective, never used and hinders accuracy with its inconsistent trigger pull.

But switching to a full-auto setting does raise an interesting question — does the infantry need full auto when most battle-seasoned veterans — including special operators — agree that semi-auto fire is highly effective for suppressing the enemy?

I posted a story this morning on Military.com that looks at the Army’s shift to full auto, what it will mean to soldiers and how it might affect training and tactics.

I can’t really see a downside to it. Back in the mid-1980s – before the shift to the M16A2 and the three-round burst – active-duty infantry units kept to a strict rule that rifleman only fired their M16A1s on semi auto. Today’s combat-experienced infantrymen are even more disciplined.

Having a more consistent trigger pull can only help rifleman shoot more accurately.

Hopefully the Army won’t ignore the full-auto setting the way it did the three-round burst. It could be a useful tool in certain situations, but only if the service devotes the training time and the ammo needed for units to become proficient at controlled, full-auto fire.

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz1hylYs17K
Kit Up!


Wanted: Full Auto for Accuracy, not Rock 'n Roll

December 29, 2011

Military.com|by Matthew Cox

It might be years from now, but soldiers will one day go into battle armed with fully automatic carbines, a capability ground forces haven’t had in more than two decades.

As the Army moves ahead with its carbine-improvement effort, it will replace today’s three-round-burst option with a full-auto setting.

The shift will dramatically increase the rate of fire soldiers can send downrange, but it will also mean new challenges for small-unit leaders, who’ll be responsible for ensuring their soldiers maintain fire discipline even during the heaviest of gunfights.

“We don’t expect, nor will we tolerate, our soldiers just firing their weapons on full-automatic because they can,” said Dave Libersat, director of the Soldier Requirements Division at the Army’s Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Ga.

“We have to maintain fire discipline for lots of reasons,” he said. “One is when you go out on patrol, you’ve only got X amount of ammo; if you shoot it all up, and you’ve still got a firefight going on, it’s not a good day for you.”

The primary reason for the return to the full-auto setting, infantry officials say, is that it will give soldiers a more accurate weapon when firing on semiautomatic.

The Army began using three-round burst setting in 1986, when it adopted the Marine Corps-developed M16A2 as a replacement for its fleet of M16A1s. The A2 fired the M249 squad automatic weapon’s M855 round and featured a number of modifications over the A1, such as improved sights, a rounded handguard and, of course, three-round burst instead of a full-auto capability.

The Marines developed the burst setting to help riflemen conserve ammunition instead of wasting it during long bursts of full-auto fire. But the Marines and the Army later realized that the mechanics of the three-round burst setting caused an inconsistent trigger pull in the semi-auto mode. This means that the trigger doesn’t feel the same every time a shooter fires, making it harder to shoot with the same degree of accuracy from one shot to the next.

“The trigger is the soldier’s primary interface with the weapon for delivering the round,” said Lt. Col. Tom Henthorn, chief of the Small Arms Branch at Benning’s Soldier Requirements Division.

This is one of the reasons U.S. Special Operations Command equipped its M4A1 carbines with full-auto triggers in the mid-1990s.

The Army’s senior leadership decided to start issuing M4A1s last year as an interim step as it moves ahead with the M4 Product Improvement Program and its improved carbine competition, which could ultimately replace the M4.

“We had some M4A1s on the range … and even the guys from the Army Marksmanship Unit had thought we had the trigger somehow,” Henthorn said. “The AMU guys were fairly impressed with the trigger.”

The Marine Corps has no plans to replace its M4s and M16A4s, but will also return to a full-auto setting, said Charlie Clark III, Infantry Weapons Capabilities Integration Officer for the Marine Corps Fires and Maneuver Integration Division.

“We want the improved trigger,” Clark said, but was unsure when such a change will occur.

So if semi-automatic fire is more effective, then why not just get rid of full auto altogether? Army officials say that full automatic could be a useful battlefield tool in some cases.

“There are times when you’ll see several soldiers with a requirement to fire on full automatic, but it’s not going to be a free-for-all out there. It has got to be squad leaders and team leaders giving fire-direction commands,” Libersat said.

As the Army transitions to a full-auto trigger, training will have to change, but not in a dramatic fashion, Libersat said. Initial Entry Training will still focus on qualification using semiautomatic fire, and will likely include instruction to familiarize soldiers with full-auto fire, he said.

It will be up to leaders in the operational Army to decide how to train soldiers to employ full-automatic fire, Libersat said.

Disciplined, well-aimed fire will always be a priority, but a small-unit leader has to have the flexibility to decide when his unit needs to ramp up its volume of fire, combat veterans say.

Henthorn summed it up this way:

“When you need the capability, full auto is the right capability to have,” he said. “When you do a break-contract drill … you want to pull the trigger, dump a mag and move.”

[I]© Copyright 2011 Military.com. All rights reserved.

[buglerbilly]

Via Soldier Systems blog.......

Legion Firearms – LF-15D

January 4th, 2012

The LF-15D from Legion Firearms is out now out; it’s a little bit different than the C model but still definitely on the high end of ARs.

Obviously, not everyone wants a monolithic upper. Some people want very specific rails, whether a particular brand suits them or just to break up the monotony. Legion is offering matched non-monolithic upper and lower receivers, so the customer can specify the style of manufacturer of rails they want (if any) and Legion puts them on (For instance, they did some with Wilson trim rails recently), The LF-15D has the same billet uppers and lowers, it’s ambidextrous and everything else such as the BattleComp 1.0 or 2.0 (as requested) with standard Revo sling and the Phase 5 Tactical charging handle assembly (which Legion helped T&E).

The LF-15D barrel uses the Legion Firearms as-yet-unnamed proprietary honeycomb fluted weight saving system. The honeycomb is a patterned barrel and is now available on their new rifles. It allows them to take an entire half pound of rifle weight in material and keep the same accuracy without any barrel walk or stringer groups (like you get when the barrel heats up). The upper, lower and bolt carrier group are all coated in Nickel Boron; barrel is ordinance grade 416 stainless steel, 5.56 NATO Chamber 1/8 twist, 3 groove polygonal rifling, mid length gas system PRI gasblock and the trigger is Crio treated, springs CMC 3.5lbs single stage.


Soldier Systems: The Legion Firearms LF15D ready to go out the door.

There will be a California edition LF-15D, just like the Charlie model had.

-DR

[buglerbilly]

Via Soldier Systems blog............

And They Said It Would Never Happen

January 15th, 2012



Cheap it ain't if the price shown is right...............

H&K USA is releasing the gas-piston, MR556A1 upper assembly to the market. Ever since a limited number of HK416 upper receivers showed up for sale on internet websites several years ago, fans have hoped that they would make the MR556A1 upper available for general sale and its finally happened.

The upper receiver kit will include a barreled flat top upper, Free Floating Rail System handguard, bolt carrier assembly, buffer, and buffer spring. The bolt carrier assembly, buffer, and buffer spring are all different than standard US Mil Spec items.

Fortunately, the MR556A1 features the same take down pin geometry as US Mil Spec Carbines so you will be able to plug it right in. Some variants of the civilian model do not share this feature.

Since it’s an upper, you can purchase the assembly as a part to attach to your existing gun so you won’t need ATF approval. However, make sure you are sitting down when you read this next part. The MSRP is reportedly $2195.

[buglerbilly]

By: Rob Curtis

15-01-2012

Product Announcement

DS Arms looks to end gas key staking with thier new KEYLOC



DSA will be showing their brand new KEYLOC next week at SHOT show. It’s replaces a standard gas key and uses a dovetail between the two six-sided screws instead of staking to prevent them from backing out.

It’s an easy swap and will end the argument over whose gas key is staked properly…enough. The only issue I can see with the device is how well it will stay in place. DSA tells me that the dovetail is tightly friction fit just like a dovetail-cut rear site on a pistol. I don’t see those falling out all that often, so I think they’re good on that point. Using the two six-sided screws won’t be a problem since you’ll always be able to get one of the six sides flat against the dovetail thanks to the generous torque range for those screws (35-45 inch pounds).

Get a primer stuck in the gas key? It’s rare, but if needed, field maintenance of a KeyLoc equipped gas key is no more or less involved than drifting a dovetailed sight from a pistol slide. If you have the tools, it’s pretty basic armorer level stuff.

Look for the KeyLoc to go on sale in February for a $25 MSRP. DS Arms also plans to offer these as a bare carrier (no bolt) for $99.99, or bare carrier with sand cuts for $139.99, and finally a bare carrier with sand cuts and NP3 coating for $159.99.

[buglerbilly]

Smith & Wesson Introduces New Additions to M&P15 Rifle Series

Mid-Length Magpul and Viking Tactics Tactical Rifles Add Depth to Lineup

08:47 GMT, January 16, 2012 SPRINGFIELD, Mass. | Smith & Wesson Corp. announced today that the Company has added two new models to the M&P15 Rifle Series through its collaborative efforts with Magpul and Viking Tactics. The M&P15 MOE Mid and M&P15 VTAC II tactical rifles bring new design elements to the Smith & Wesson lineup. Featuring a mid-length operating system, patent-pending flash hider and numerous other performance enhancements, the new tactical rifles provide reliable and feature-rich options for professional and recreational shooters.

“Smith & Wesson is excited to offer consumers new additions to the M&P15 tactical rifle line through our strong relationships with Magpul and Viking Tactics,” said Mario Pasantes, Smith & Wesson’s Senior Vice President of Marketing and Global Professional Sales. “The new mid-length rifles expand Smith & Wesson’s advanced line of sporting firearms, while addressing consumer demands for exceptional performance and design.”

Each of the new M&P15 rifles help to diversify the Company’s current line of purpose driven centerfire rifles.

M&P15 MOE Mid





The new Magpul Spec Series of tactical rifles includes a co-branded lower receiver that is only available through Smith & Wesson. The first two rifles in the series consist of the M&P15 MOE Mid, available in black and flat dark earth configurations. Providing performance-minded shooters with a reliable option from a trusted manufacturer of modern sporting rifles, the M&P15 MOE Mid utilizes a unique mid-length system.

Based on the proven M&P15 platform, the M&P15 MOE Mid incorporates Magpul’s original equipment while delivering the accuracy and dependability that consumers have come to expect from Smith & Wesson. At the base of the rifle is a newly added mid-length operating system. Resulting in lower recoil with improved second shot probability, the M&P15 MOE Mid allows shooters the opportunity to make consecutive follow-up shots more accurately.

The new co-branded, Magpul designed forged lower receiver features a flared magazine well to help ease reloading. For improved handling, the lower is also standard with a forward serrated edge on the magazine well and an ambidextrous finger shelf that allows proper indexing of the trigger finger prior to the firing of the rifle. Shooters will also appreciate the solid one-piece integrated trigger guard design along with the rifle’s sharp design lines for improved aesthetics.

The M&P15 MOE Mid comes standard with a 16-inch 4150 CMV barrel with a 1 in 8-inch rate of twist and 5R rifling for improved accuracy. For extended durability, the rifle’s barrel has a Melonite® finish and both the bolt carrier and gas key are chrome-lined. At the end of the barrel, Smith & Wesson has added its patent-pending enhanced flash hider. Designed to significantly reduce the flash signature of the rifle, the new flash hider directs gases and sound forward away from the shooter while helping to eliminate secondary flash.

The new M&P15 MOE Mid is standard with several Magpul innovative features, which include a MOE six-position, collapsible buttstock and a modular MOE mid-length handguard. For an improved grip both near the firing control and on the forend, the rifle is setup with a comfortable MOE pistol grip and a removable MOE vertical grip (MVG). The new tactical rifle is also standard with a folding Magpul MBUS rear sight along with a traditional A2-style front sight. Each rifle is sold complete with one 30-round PMAG® magazine.

“We’re very excited about the new Smith and Wesson Magpul Spec Series of rifles,” said Drake Clark, Senior Director of Sales and Business Development for Magpul. “The integration of both Brands in this line really showcases Smith & Wesson’s manufacturing abilities and quality, while highlighting Magpul’s design capabilities and input on configuration. Everything from the barrel specs to the sharp appearance of the lower was determined so that the rifle not only performs great, but offers a distinct look that only Smith & Wesson and Magpul can deliver.”

M&P15 VTAC II





Smith & Wesson worked closely with Kyle Lamb of Viking Tactics to design the specifications for the M&P15 VTAC II. The new tactical rifle offers reduced recoil and improved accuracy based on the mid-length system. The rifle’s 16-inch barrel is constructed of 4150 CMV steel and is standard with a 1 in 8-inch rate of twist and a Melonite finish. The new tactical rifle features 5R rifling, which maintains accuracy and helps to reduce copper fouling and cleaning times.

“The new Smith & Wesson VTAC II is the next phase of the evolution of the combat carbine,” said Kyle Lamb. “Whether headed to the range or into harms way, the new rifle is mission ready with all the enhancements needed right out of the box. Made right here in the United States, this M&P15 is all you could ever ask for, no upgrades required.”

The M&P15 VTAC II is available with a VTAC/Troy™ Extreme TRX Handguard that allows for quick target transitions made possible by its lightweight, ergonomic design. The new handguard also helps to reduce heat transfer, while the multiple accessory slots provide a myriad of options for mounting accessories. Each M&P15 VTAC II is packaged with two, 2-inch adjustable Picatinny-style rails for convenient mounting on the forend.

At the end of the barrel, Smith & Wesson has added its patent-pending enhanced flash hider. The new flash hider helps direct gas and sound forward away from the shooter, while reducing the rifle’s flash signature. The VTAC II lower is standard with a VLTOR IMod six-position, collapsible stock that extends the rifle to 36.75 inches and shortens it to 33.5 inches with the stock collapsed.

For improved accuracy, the M&P15 VTAC II is standard with a Geissele Super V Trigger. The enhanced trigger provides shooters with a light pull and quick reset for precise shot placement. Additional VTAC branded features that are packaged with the rifle include a wide, padded two-point tactical sling along with a LPSM low profile sling mount. For illuminating targets, a VTAC light mount has been added to the setup. Each rifle is complete with a 30-round PMAG magazine.

“The first versions of the M&P15 MOE and M&P15 VTAC were so well received by the industry and users that we quickly recognized the need for additional models,” said Danielle Sanville, Smith & Wesson’s Product Manager for Modern Sporting Rifles. “After deep discussions with both Magpul and Viking Tactics, new design specifications were created for each rifle based not only on customer feedback and research, but also on the new capabilities being offered by both companies. The end result is two new M&P15 tactical rifles that break away from the ordinary, both delivering superior quality and performance.”

[buglerbilly]

More on this...............

By: Rob Curtis

16-01-2012

Product Announcement, video

VTAC Rifle 2.0 announced

Kyle Lamb and Smith & Wesson update the VTAC Rifle with new Geiselle trigger, Troy rail, more.

[buglerbilly]

By: Andrew Tuohy

18-01-2012

Product Announcement

Rock River Arms LAR-47



Potential SpecFor use where you want to leave fired brass in 7.62 x 39 calibre AND use enemy magazines whilst maintaining a sight profile of carrying Western weapons?

Rock River Arms has introduced an AR-15 in 7.62×39 that uses standard AK-47 mags. It should be available in 60-90 days, according to RRA. The bore has a 1/10 twist and is chrome lined. The upper itself was clearanced for AK mags, something those who are interested only in the lower should keep in mind.

This was of particular interest to me because I shoot a lot of 5.45×39 through AR-15s, and while my own magazines are reliable, 5.45×39 AR-15 magazines as a whole are not. The Rock River Arms folks said that the lower should work with 5.45 AK mags, but they have no plans to introduce a 5.45 version, nor do they plan to sell the lower separately.

The mag release was pretty wide and easy to access from both sides, and the mags locked into place fairly well. MSRP is over $1400, and it will be interesting to see what demand is like for this product.

[buglerbilly]

Gun Firms Fear Army Carbine Fait Accompli

January 20, 2012

Military.com|by Matthew Cox



LAS VEGAS -- And the winner of the U.S. Army competition to replace the M4 carbine is … the Army's new and improved M4 carbine.

At least that's the outcome gun makers attending Shot Show 2012 predict for the completion of the service's improved carbine competition.

The Army is nearing the end of the first phase of the competition, now referred to as the IC. The service will soon announce which companies can advance to the second phase, when Army testers will start shooting hundreds of thousands of rounds through the prototype weapons.

Phase one has had nothing to do with evaluating test prototypes, but instead has focused on weeding out companies that may not have the production capacity to make thousands of weapons per month. This has become a bitter point of contention that has driven away some companies with credible names in the gun business.

"I'm not going to dump half a million to a million dollars for them never to review my rifle," said Steve Mayer of Rock River Arms, standing amid his racks of M4-style carbines at Shot Show, the massive small-arms show here that draws gun makers from all over the world.

The Army invited vendors last June to submit proposals for off-the-shelf carbines that could replace the M4, made by Colt Defense LLC.

For more than three years, dozens of gun makers have been preparing for the chance to unseat the Army's M4, but it's unclear how many of those companies remain.

Alex Robinson, the head of Robinson Armament Company, was excited about competing when Army officials first announced the effort in 2008. That quickly faded when he began trying to wade through the IC's narrow guidelines that seem to discourage innovation, he said.

Robinson's company is known for its XCR line of modular weapons that offer several barrel lengths and multiple calibers -- attributes that do not fit with the Army's improved carbine requirement.

"If we are going to develop for our country a new rifle, shouldn't we take all preconceived notions off the table and try to come up with what is really the best for Soldiers?" he asked. "That is what I expected the IC to be about, and I could see that it wasn't going to be anything about that. I just felt like I would be wasting a year or two year's profits chasing a ghost that I am never going to catch."

Smith & Wesson and LWRC International also decided against participating in the competition.

LWRC had already made its batch of M6 Improved Carbine prototypes when it decided to call it quits.

"The guns met all the requirements; we met all the requirements for ambidextrous controls, we met the performance requirement, the accuracy requirement -- but what we couldn't keep up with was the contracting side," said Darren Mellors, executive vice president for LWRC.

LWRC is a small company, so it signed an agreement with Anniston Army Depot to use its new small-arms center to meet the Army's production requirement of 4,200 weapons per month.

"The goal was to make the Army feel comfortable, that they weren't taking a risk," Mellors said. "That would make the Army a partner in building these rifles. If they had to surge production, they know what their capability and capacity is."

Then, an amendment to the solicitation included language that basically said "if you use any government-furnished equipment, facilities or labor -- they are going to penalize you on your sale price," Mellors said. "Well to use Anniston Army Depot, it's actually more expensive compared to market value."

Jesse Gomez, senior VP at LWRC, explained it this way:

"The contract people looked at it as [though] we are getting a deal, but Anniston says 'you are paying market value to use our services,' " Gomez said, explaining that Anniston's take on "market value is not really comparable to industry; it's higher than industry."

In the end, LWRC officials decided the risk of being eliminated after phase one was too great.

"It would do more damage to the company than good; who knows how many years the rumor would be you got eliminated in phase one," Mellors said. "Your competitors would tell your customers, don't buy LWRC. They got eliminated by the Army."

But LWRC doesn't regret spending close to $1 million to create its new IC weapon, which drew a lot of interest on the Shot Show floor, Mellors said.

"You can shoot 15 magazines through this weapon on full auto, nonstop, no rest and do no permanent damage to it," he said proudly.

"My only regret is I feel like you put your best foot forward for the warfighter and he will never get to see it, test it or even know if it is worthwhile. I thought the whole point of this was to look at the best technology."

Not all gun makers were as willing to comment on the competition, especially those that appear to be in it until the bitter end.

FNH USA spokeswoman Jeanette Hanfling said the company is not granting any interviews until after the completion of Phase One of the competition.

But the company's 2012 product catalog at Shot Show includes the new FN Advanced Carbine. The newest member of the Special Operations Forces Assault Rifle, or SCAR line, "is ready to serve as the U.S. Army's next generation Individual Carbine," according to the catalog.

The new carbine looks very much like the MK 16 SCAR, but there is no information on whether the 14-inch hammer-forged barrel is changeable at the operator level like the MK16.

The advanced carbine features a non-reciprocating charging handle and is slightly lighter than the MK16, weighing in at 7.95 pounds with a loaded 30 round magazine -- a key requirement in the carbine competition.

G. Wayne Weber, president of Heckler & Koch's U.S. operation, was very guarded about the version of the 416 carbine the company submitted to the competition.

This "is much more visible than other competitions," he said. "It's just more high profile."

He admitted he was surprised that some companies have pulled out but said that H&K isn't changing its course.

"It's still a competition that we have a chance of winning; I wouldn't want to pull the plug on something I would regret," Weber said.

Military.com made several requests to Colt for an interview, but the company's leadership was unavailable for comment.

In addition to the carbine competition, the Army is also conducting a parallel effort to improve the more than 500,000 M4s in the inventory.

The general feeling at Shot Show was that even if the Army selects a new carbine, it's unlikely to buy it. Upon completion of the competition sometime in late 2013, the Army will conduct a business-case analysis to see if it is worth buying a new carbine over the improved M4.

For this reason, officials at Remington Arms Company Inc. decided to refine its Adaptive Combat Rifle to meet the IC requirements instead of playing it safe with the company's M4-style carbine.

"When they do the final down select, they are going to compare it to the improved M4, and it has to be significantly better -- so we thought how can another M4 be significantly better than another M4?" said Trevor Shaw, director of Military and Government Programs at Remington.

Remington took its ACR, a carbine with modular features such as a quick-change barrel system, and completely reworked the design.

"We were very happy with the reliability of the original ACR … but that gun could not make the weight requirement," Shaw said.

"The government didn't ask for any level of modularity … so we took out our user-changeable barrel. It's still a quick-change barrel," but now it would have to be done at the unit armor level.

The new ACR's lower receiver is now made from a magnesium alloy, which is as light as polymer but much more durable, Shaw said. Remington also fluted the barrel, narrowed the handguard and got rid of the folding stock feature.

The new ACR is a departure from its modular roots, but Remington officials are happier with the final design.

"This finally feels handy when you pick it up," Shaw said. "What's scary to me is if … you get through the competition, they declare a winner and then it goes against the M4 and they say 'OK it's better than M4, but not enough.' "

© Copyright 2012 Military.com. All rights reserved.

[buglerbilly]

Completely STUPID progarmme this!!!

Wrong approach to innovation, MORE OR LESS none is allowed, yet they expect it to be different to be accepted as the new M4...........WOT?!!!!

[buglerbilly]

Thales and Steyr Mannlicher Sign Cooperation Agreement

(Source: Thales; issued January 25, 2012)

Bringing together unique Australian and Austrian expertise, Thales Australia and Steyr Mannlicher have signed an agreement to cooperate on global market opportunities. Steyr Mannlicher is the original designer of the Australian Defence Force’s F88 assault rifle, which was manufactured and subsequently developed further by Thales Australia.

Under the agreement the two companies will refresh their longstanding cooperation in military markets, with Thales Australia taking the formal lead in Australia and New Zealand. This will benefit customers by sharing R&D to drive product improvements, working towards common supply chains where appropriate, and streamlining service delivery.

Chris Jenkins, Thales Australia’s CEO, said: “This agreement represents the continuing evolution of our Soldier Systems business. Steyr Mannlicher has a long history and a global market outlook which, combined with our expertise delivering and upgrading infantry weapons, will allow us to collectively build on our vast knowledge and networks to offer streamlined, cost-effective solutions to customers.”

“Both companies employ world-class weapon designers and experts, and our combined capabilities will make this a compelling team. We have invested significantly in weapon development in Australia, and are eager to offer Australian innovations through Steyr Mannlicher to the rest of the world. The current development of the next generation weapon under the LAND 125 3C program is the most recent example of the innovative work being done at Lithgow.”

Thales Australia and Steyr Mannlicher have been working together since 1986 to deliver assault rifles, and since then have continuously improved weapon performance and enabled the integration of a wide range of third-party accessories. The SA2 currently in service demonstrates the continuing evolution of this capability.

Over the past few years, Thales Australia has built on its traditional expertise in the precision manufacturing of small arms at the Thales-owned Lithgow facility in New South Wales, to offer a wider range of services including engineering, design, procurement, logistics and project management. The company also supports a range of third-party weapons currently in use by the Australian Defence Force.

Thales is a global technology leader for the Defence & Security and the Aerospace & Transport markets. In 2010, the company generated revenues of €13.1 billion (equivalent of AUD 18.9 billion) with 68,000 employees in 50 countries. With its 22,500 engineers and researchers, Thales has a unique capability to design, develop and deploy equipment, systems and services that meet the most complex security requirements. Thales has an exceptional international footprint, with operations around the world working with customers as local partners.

Thales Australia is a trusted partner of the Australian Defence Force and is also present in commercial sectors ranging from air traffic management to security systems and services. Employing around 3,300 people in over 35 sites across the country, Thales Australia recorded revenues of around AUD 900 million in 2010.

Originating from a traditional location in Steyr, Austria, which was eponymous for the enterprise, Steyr Mannlicher expanded to an international entrepreneurial group with premises in Austria and the USA. High-quality military & law enforcement-, hunting- and sporting rifles are developed and worldwide marketed by Steyr Mannlicher.

The precision and trend-setting product development of Steyr Mannlicher is always and everywhere in demand. Special Forces in many countries trust the precision and reliability of Steyr Mannlicher rifles. Custom made solutions for the particular user are found by direct contact and prompt co-operation with governmental authorities all over the world.

-ends-