No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gun

[TOPO-sniper]

M4 you? M4 Me?
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.

 

[ArmaHeavy]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gun

Let the bullshit begin!

 

[excess]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gun

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TOPO-sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The second phase will focus on increasing the M4&#146;s effectiveness and accuracy, with emphasis on the bolt, bolt carrier assembly and the forward rail assembly.
</div></div>

I wonder what they will get out of the bolt and carrier in terms of effectiveness and accuracy? I know bolts break now and then, but other than an increase in reliability I don't understand the emphasis on these two parts.

 

[Oakland Tactical]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gun

When your pushing the pressure limits of the MK262 Mod 1 5.56 round and then shooting them on FA those two parts are critical.

 

[civprod]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gun

I swear they do this every 6 months or so (although last time it may have just been testing). I bet I can already guess the guns that will be submitted:

H&K XM8
M4
Scar Heavy and Light
HK 416
ACR

 

[TallShot]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gun

W.....T.....F.....???

HOW many times do we have to do this?

Just pick something already.....

 

[Oakland Tactical]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gun

They do this all the time with everything. Get a bunch of manufacturers to show their latest wares. Then decide the incremental improvements and costs don't justify turning the whole system upside down. Its just a solicitation to see how the industry is progressing, which the program managers already know.

I think a company will have to really be innovative to jump ahead of the M4 which can feasibly be upgraded with ambidextrous controls and better reliability that the challengers have, all without upsetting the supply chain too much.

Actually putting the same standard 5.56 bullet into bad guys, I don't see how any new platform can improve enough on the M4. The real improvement is the ammunition which at this point seems to be impossible to change.

 

[rsilvers]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gun

Only 5.56mm has a chance.

Only one gun per company, so no one will submit another caliber and give up a 5.56mm submission.

 

[ArmaHeavy]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gun

SSDD. That's all it will be.

 

[KevinB-KAC]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gun

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rsilvers</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Only 5.56mm has a chance.

Only one gun per company, so no one will submit another caliber and give up a 5.56mm submission. </div></div>

Someone may submit a 7.62 NATO gun


IC is a farce in the current concept, and even the Army shied away recently and is contracting on M4 PIP (Phase 1 the M4A1 is complete, Phase II will be Trigger and FF Longer rail, Phase III is ambo features and new bolt/carrier, new coating, and perhaps new operating system).

IF we want to look at an IC, I think new ammuntion technologies should be explored first -- something like a 7mm CTA (Case Telescoping Ammuntion) where you can get the performance of the 7x46 UIAC (former 7mm Murray designed by Chris Murray) in a much lighter and smaller package.
Then you can go to industry looking for a revolutionary platform.

 

[ArmaHeavy]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gun

Best idea I heard so far.

It will be hard to get them, the services, to buy into it.

It's not like we're talking about a tool shed that fires off anti-tank missles, more robot things, or the latest in multi-million dollar electronic paperweights.

 

[CTone03]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gun

I agree that 5.56 rifles are going to be what is submitted, but I think we will see more and more multi-caliber platforms from now on. It may be far off, but one day the US will decide to entertain changing rounds, and it would be helpful if it didn't take changing the whole weapon system. It can't hurt in the civilian side of the market either, as the non-military folks sure seem to be enjoying the 6.5 - 30 caliber rounds in ARs for shooting critters.

 

[Awesymoto]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gun

based on my prediction here from afghanistan. They will pick the most government friendly contract. AKA.... 10 year service life min, 3 MOA, Picatinny, and most produced for the cheapest dough. I've lost faith in the idea of a new combat rifle back in 08' ..... then again the Army seems to have all the nicer stuff (multi cam, better packs, new kevlars... etc Etc...) We need to chop off *2 F 35's from the budget and replace all outdated stuff boots on deck use. I mean it must be hard to Have to fly a Harrier out here.. but man We still have an enormous amount of M16's on deck.

 

[ArmaHeavy]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gun

It's the same way with the Army too.

Alot of the force still runs around with M-16s.

It reminds me of that story I heard about some of the units going to Gulf War 1 with Garands, but I'm really getting off topic with that.

Back to the topic now...I agree with Kevin on the new ammo caliber but I know what will happen. It will get shot down because someone will complain that it isn't compatable with this system or that system. That argument holds back the development for future weapon sytems. The M249 was made with the compatability to use M16/M4 mags and because it can, it is now being used to stiffle further development of a new basic rifleman's weapon(the foundation) which is what IMHO is needed.

I don't think limiting the new M4/M16 replacment to anything related to it's predecessor (caliber, magazine compatibility, weapon familiarity) will help at all.

Change starts from the ground up, either that or it's a consistant and ever tightening 360 degree circle that we are all going in.

 

[r_boyette]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gun

Yet another excuse to waste time, money, & make a big show/circus, without ever actually having to "DO" anything. I read a good article a few years ago about a guy that worked for Armalite, designing new rifles & machine guns. He said the Army wasn't interested in finding a solution to a problem. That more times than not, the best rifle, ammo, equipment for what the troops needed had already been designed/developed, but instead of going with a product that had already been tested/debugged(ex. a 7.62mm Battle Rifle), & was already ready to bring to market, or in many cases already in use by other militaries, instead the Army choose to come-up with "new criteria"(ie. Re-invent the wheel), & let the firearms industry waste no-telling how much $$$ or how many hours designing a new product(that would have to be debugged) so they could test & test & test, only to eventually give-up & stick with what was already in use. His opinion was that the Military & Firearms Industry both already knew the logistics burden of changing things like standard-issue rifles/caliber was going to be the excuse not to implement the changes before the design-testing-evaluation process ever started, but it had become SOP for making sure defense manufacturers, bean-counters, & the like never ran out of business. He went on to say the the people in these positions were only interested in products with extra-slow, testing & development processes, that could show some small advancement toward being field-able as soon as it's development-funding looked to be running dry yet in actuality, all involved knew that it would never be ready for battle. The example he gave was "caseless ammunition," because every few years, developers(when they "HAD" to) could show some minor break-through, or new technology that made it "seem" as tho it was closer to being ready to field, when everyone knew that it was years/decades away, or would NEVER be practical.

I believe he called it, "keeping the wheels greased." It's awful to think that military, DoD, or whoever would be playing those kind of games with equipment that could likely be saving our men's lives, just to keep the "industry" & themselves..."happy."

Then again, just look at every other scenario where ANY part of the United States' Gov't is put in charge of the "procurement" of a resource or service or soldiers or civillians must have. With all this storm damage I'm seeing all around me at the moment, I can't help but remember back to Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, & seeing how these officials running Gov't agencies like FEMA were allowing their "contacts" in different industries to make a killing hauling ice & FEMA trailor's all over the southeast, never delivering them, but steadily racking-up more & more miles to overcharge the taxpayer for.

Now I realize camper-trailers & ice are not the rifles our troops need to defend us & themselves, but it's a classic example of just how useless any operation ran by most any of our Gov't agencies can be, & if the man who's interview I read was at all accurate in what he was saying, then it seems as though there are groups high-up in our military who are suffering from the same "disease!"

IMHO... YMMV

 

[sinister]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gun

The United States Army will change the basic rifleman's individual weapon when A) It will get the general in charge of small arms development his second star because B) it will revolutionize the Infantryman's role and C) it is indeed a seminal technology leap worthy of the entire Department of Defense to depart from what it already has.

We have not won nor lost a major land war since WWII. The M16 ascended to its position because the US Army Ordnance Department dicked the dog and got caught, industry could not deliver the M14 fast enough, and Secretary of Defense Macnamara stepped in to show DoD how smart he was.

I believe the end state for this will be several million dollars wasted and a Product Improved M4 (M4A2). It will be an M4 brought up to 2011 standard with a free-float rail, a heavy barrel, and a good select-fire two-stage trigger.

It'll still be 5.56 shooting OK to marginal to shitty quality ammo and it may have a new magazine and furniture, but it will generally be the same duck from the same DNA.

The whole Army won't have to change. Tables of Organization and Equipment will merely be modified (i.e., "All divisions assigned infantrymen MOS 11B, 11C, and cavalry scout 19K; soldiers previously assigned the M4/M4A1 Carbine; students assigned to the US Army Infantry School; and soldiers assigned to USASOC).

It may or may not appeal to the Marine Corps (parent of the M16A2 and HK Infantry Automatic Rifle), who may not buy it. As long as the Army does a shitty job training its recruits and the non-Infantry force to simply defend itself with a rifle or carbine there is little impetus to completely re-furnish the entire US military (besides the image that the Army's doing SOMETHING).

It is the same fight the Special Operations Command has internally -- new weapons have to fit a requirement that can't be met by training or something in inventory, that have to be bought with funds that have to be divided among competing priorities.

 

[SuckitTrebek]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gun

Let the internet troll arguements begin

 

[notquiteright]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gun

I love rumors of war. NO Garands went to the gulf. Garands were a distant memory before most of the Gulf War privates were old enough to be potty trained.

I also love the using Fema to bash all 'gubment'. Fema is one of the agencies used for patronage for all those well connected campaign contributors.

Now Gubment doesnt exist all alone. It works hand in hand with those who feed at the Gubment tit.

Who better to write the contracts than men who just recently left a high paying corporate job to 'serve' the country on the civilian side of DoD in procurement?

Who better to manage the projects than the men who will retire from service and become consultants for the very corporations they were holding accountable for the proper use of taxpayer money.

How helpful is it that even simple items the military uses are subcontracted out to as many vendors in as many states as absurdly possible to get as many politicians onboard as providing JOBS in their district?

Now when it comes to infantry individual weapons it seems the most being done are dog and pony projects about some ethereal Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, Storm Trooper thing for the Military Channel.

It will be interesting to see what if anything worth all the time and 'effort' is produced. It could be a lucrative contract, would be one of the few major contracts for the lowly Infantry that might actually help in this lifetime.

Wonder if all get inline so as not to be eliminated by being the odd duck, or if a truely new and improved duck gets presented.

Funny how villified the M16 was back in the day, everything from its caliber, to its flimsy buttstock, to its just plain FUGLY!

Now it seems to be THE reason we will not have anything truely improved is we are nuts deep in them and the ammunition!

Reminds me of the Springfield Trapdoor adoption to save money by using all those old muzzleloaders lying around.

Might be interesting, might be a yawnfest, but no doubt will cost the taxpayer alot for any bang we get, but at least a few Consultants will have nice offshore investments.

 

[sinister]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gun

The US Army simply doesn't care.

No general has been fired recently because he lost a battle. Quite a few senior officers have because they couldn't keep their zipper up. I don't believe we've lost any battles because our M16s have failed and entire US units have been decimated, defeated, captured, overrun, or wiped out, losing their colors.

Anonymous guys claim their M16s or carbines failed. In many of those cases after detailed investigation the loss of troops or positions can be attributed to human failures to prepare positions or reinforce troops rather than wholesale failure of our equipment.

If the M16/M4 is a universal piece o' garbage we would have stopped using it a long, long time ago.

Giving Picatinny half an excuse to look for something to keep engineers and Ph.Ds employed keeps their doors open.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FedBizOpps notice Date: 2010-22-06

<span style="font-weight: bold">Sources Sought Synopsis</span>

The U.S. Army, Joint Munitions & Lethality Contracting Center is seeking information about commercial off-the-shelf revolvers with 4 or more shots, which can accommodate ammunition with a length of 2.25". In addition, the cylinder should be sized to accommodate .410 bore shot-shells or larger. The focus of this revolver is to be versatile enough to fire cartridge projectiles, shot-shells and small flares.

Information about existing production revolvers and/or revolvers and associated ammunition of this type that are currently in development is also desired.

Interested parties are requested to submit a description of their product(s)along with other available information (sketches, drawings, specifications,brochures, and/or test results that describe current capability/on-going development) to: U.S. Army ARDEC, ATTN: Kenneth Beatty, Contract Specialist, U.S. Army Joint Munitions & Lethality Contracting Center, Soldier Weapons Contracting Center, CCJM-SW, Building 9, Picatinny Arsenal, N.J. 07806-5000EMAIL ADDRESS [email protected].

This Market Survey is for information and planning purposes only, and does not constitute a Request for Proposal (RFP). This Market Survey is not to be construed as a commitment by the U. S. Government. If a formal solicitation is generated at a later date, a solicitation notice will be published. No award will be made as a result of this Market Survey. All information is to be submitted at no cost or obligation to the Government. The Government reserves the right to reject, in whole or in part, any private sector input as a result of this Market Survey. Respondents will not be notified of the results of this survey or results of information submitted. Please submit your responses NLT 1400 (2:00 PM) EST, 7 July 2010.

Additional Info: US ARMY Contracting Command JM&L CC-Picatinny Procurement Network Contracting Office

Address: US Army, Army Contracting Command, Joint Munitions and Lethality (JM&L) Contracting Center, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey 07806-5000

Point of Contact(s):
Kenneth Beatty, Contract Specialist, (973)724-2946
</div></div>

 

[bribri]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gun

Deleted

 

[Mead]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gun

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Big Russ</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yet another excuse to waste time, money, & make a big show/circus, without ever actually having to "DO" anything. I read a good article a few years ago about a guy that worked for Armalite, designing new rifles & machine guns. He said the Army wasn't interested in finding a solution to a problem. That more times than not, the best rifle, ammo, equipment for what the troops needed had already been designed/developed, but instead of going with a product that had already been tested/debugged(ex. a 7.62mm Battle Rifle), & was already ready to bring to market, or in many cases already in use by other militaries, instead the Army choose to come-up with "new criteria"(ie. Re-invent the wheel), & let the firearms industry waste no-telling how much $$$ or how many hours designing a new product(that would have to be debugged) so they could test & test & test, only to eventually give-up & stick with what was already in use. His opinion was that the Military & Firearms Industry both already knew the logistics burden of changing things like standard-issue rifles/caliber was going to be the excuse not to implement the changes before the design-testing-evaluation process ever started, but it had become SOP for making sure defense manufacturers, bean-counters, & the like never ran out of business. He went on to say the the people in these positions were only interested in products with extra-slow, testing & development processes, that could show some small advancement toward being field-able as soon as it's development-funding looked to be running dry yet in actuality, all involved knew that it would never be ready for battle. The example he gave was "caseless ammunition," because every few years, developers(when they "HAD" to) could show some minor break-through, or new technology that made it "seem" as tho it was closer to being ready to field, when everyone knew that it was years/decades away, or would NEVER be practical.

I believe he called it, "keeping the wheels greased." It's awful to think that military, DoD, or whoever would be playing those kind of games with equipment that could likely be saving our men's lives, just to keep the "industry" & themselves..."happy."

Then again, just look at every other scenario where ANY part of the United States' Gov't is put in charge of the "procurement" of a resource or service or soldiers or civillians must have. With all this storm damage I'm seeing all around me at the moment, I can't help but remember back to Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, & seeing how these officials running Gov't agencies like FEMA were allowing their "contacts" in different industries to make a killing hauling ice & FEMA trailor's all over the southeast, never delivering them, but steadily racking-up more & more miles to overcharge the taxpayer for.

Now I realize camper-trailers & ice are not the rifles our troops need to defend us & themselves, but it's a classic example of just how useless any operation ran by most any of our Gov't agencies can be, & if the man who's interview I read was at all accurate in what he was saying, then it seems as though there are groups high-up in our military who are suffering from the same "disease!"

IMHO... YMMV </div></div>

The military industrial complex sucks for pretty much everyone except those making money off it.

 

[ArmaHeavy]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gun

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The U.S. Army, Joint Munitions & Lethality Contracting Center is seeking information about commercial off-the-shelf revolvers with 4 or more shots, which can accommodate ammunition with a length of 2.25". In addition, the cylinder should be sized to accommodate .410 bore shot-shells or larger. The focus of this revolver is to be versatile enough to fire cartridge projectiles, shot-shells and small flares.</div></div>

Seriously Sin? They're asking about Judge-type revolvers?

Have they lost their minds? The only bright side I see is using .45 ACP ammo.

 

[r_boyette]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gu

<span style="font-weight: bold">"The U.S. Army, Joint Munitions & Lethality Contracting Center is seeking information about commercial off-the-shelf revolvers with 4 or more shots, which can accommodate ammunition with a length of 2.25". In addition, the cylinder should be sized to accommodate .410 bore shot-shells or larger. The focus of this revolver is to be versatile enough to fire cartridge projectiles, shot-shells and small flares.

Information about existing production revolvers and/or revolvers and associated ammunition of this type that are currently in development is also desired."</span>


Taurus JUDGE, perhaps??? Nah, would be too simple & easy, even if it actually DID meet all their specs...

 

[ArmaHeavy]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gu

Smith and Wesson Governor is in the same category, too.

Someone in the DOD is sniffing glue while reading a gun magazine.

 

[r_boyette]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gu

Just WTF kinda problem is the Army finding itself dealing with(on a "frequent" basis), that the procurement of a brand-new, 4-6 shot, .410 bore, revolver would be the solution??? Capable of firing 2.5" shotshells/flares, as well as .45cal slugs...

I assume since a big part of the solicitation for info on a firearm like this was concerned with it's ability to fire flares & the stated 4-shot or greater capacity, we're not talking about a replacement for the M9 Beretta here, right?

Maybe if it's not an OPSEC-issue somebody can help me here, but I just can't think of a single use for some such shit as this, at least not a use that other, more abundently available, & currently fielded weapons don't already do!

There may very well be outstandingly important reasons for each & every piece of equipment that gets to the T&E stage of the procurement process, but be damned if to the laymen/outsider-looking-in, & based on prior examples of this sort, it don't just look to me like somebody in that department may possibly spend a lil' too damn much time day-dreaming or some shit... JMO YMMV

 

[XTR]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gun

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KevinB-KAC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

IF we want to look at an IC, I think new ammuntion technologies should be explored first -- something like a 7mm CTA (Case Telescoping Ammuntion) where you can get the performance of the 7x46 UIAC (former 7mm Murray designed by Chris Murray) in a much lighter and smaller package.
Then you can go to industry looking for a revolutionary platform.

</div></div>

Not sure how "new" this is. I did a project for a Ares or Aries, (I forget the spelling) at Erie Proving grounds back in '96 , anyway they showed me some of the info on a design/prototype machine-gun submitted to the DoD based on case expanding projectiles. The technology seems to solve a whole host of feeding problems for automatic weapons, makes great sense for a SAW type weapon except that the ammo would be different from all the other weapons. I'm not sure how well the tech would work for the basic issue assault weapon.

 

[KevinB-KAC]

Re: No SCAR or ACR? US Army issuing RFP for new gun

LSAT died as it was 5.56CTA -- the powers that be did not want to fund a 5.56mm lightweight LMG replacement.

Sinister is 100% correct on his comments. This biggest issue is training of the individual soldier.

I for one would never feel under equipped with a M4A1, and a few small improvements could be done easily without squandering a pile of our (taxpayer) money.


My point on the 7mmCTA system - is that IF we are going to fund a new IC, we should also note the SAW's are near lifecycle, and if we need to revamp the small arms fleet, prior to doing that we should look into real improvements to range, accuracy and (from a former guy who walked around with a gun a lot) WEIGHT of ammo.