Army Kills Competition to Replace M4

[sailskidrive]

Damn, that is offensive. Especially the height of the scope.

 

[Indiana Jones]

The M14 haters will really hate the way I set up this particular M14. It offends both those that hate the M14, and those that love it.

Just the m4 stock. Everyone has to turn EVERYTHING into an AR! At least its not as bad as that huge stock set they make.

 

[trbon8r]

Damn, that is offensive. Especially the height of the scope.

The scope only clears the rear sight aperture by less than 1/4". With the ARMS mount on there it is about as low as it can go. I might be able to get away with low instead of medium rings, but it would be real tight. With the VLTOR stock that has a height adjustment, it is a breeze to get a good cheek weld.

Indy,

The AR stock is popular because having adjustable length of pull to fit different shooters or for wearing different clothing for winter versus summer is a real plus. As I mentioned above, it also allows me to adjust the height for the scope. The stock also shaves off a little weight as well. I agree though, not as good for aesthetic appeal as the original walnut.

 

[sailskidrive]

The scope only clears the rear sight aperture by less than 1/4". With the ARMS mount on there it is about as low as it can go. I might be able to get away with low instead of medium rings, but it would be real tight. With the VLTOR stock that has a height adjustment, it is a breeze to get a good cheek weld.

Indy,

The AR stock is popular because having adjustable length of pull to fit different shooters or for wearing different clothing for winter versus summer is a real plus. As I mentioned above, it also allows me to adjust the height for the scope. The stock also shaves off a little weight as well. I agree though, not as good for aesthetic appeal as the original walnut.

Yeah, I'm jut messing with you. I have the same mount.

Honestly, I kind of like your setup, it modernizes and adds versatility without going overboard.

 

[new_shooter]

Here you go bro

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=50844

OMG. I think I'm having a tactigasm!

 

[new_shooter]

Re the original topic: It seems to me that unless they intend to change the cartridge used, there's little reason to change the platform. M16/M4 has the kinks worked out at this point, variants have been created for the profiles it's useful in, and it's proven adaptable to changes in tech such as newer sights, etc.

I thought we revived the M14 because we discovered in Afghanistan mountain combat that 5.56 (even from the SAW) was having difficulty countering threats on higher ground, and 7.62s longer range was able to handle that task, even with the M14's drawbacks (heavy weight, less than optimal accuracy?)

Seems to me we need a competition for a fire team level mountain gun firing 7.62, rather than the 5.56 platform. Something lighter and more accurate than the M14?

 

[trbon8r]

Seems to me we need a competition for a fire team level mountain gun firing 7.62, rather than the 5.56 platform. Something lighter and more accurate than the M14?

I think it is very doable to find something lighter with easier solutions for mounting optics than the M14. It is certainly possible to find something easier to produce. Even with the full resources of the U.S government behind the project, M14 production was hampered by production delays, and the rates of parts rejection were high.

As far as accuracy it won't be that easy to top the old gun as a designated marksman rifle. Back in its heyday as a match gun the Marines standard for accuracy was a 10 shot group fired at 300 yards using a mechanical rest. The standard for acceptance was a 2.5" group or less. That is pretty damn good out of a gas gun even today.

 

[huesmann]

Seems to me we need a competition for a fire team level mountain gun firing 7.62, rather than the 5.56 platform. Something lighter and more accurate than the M14?

I thought SCARs were already being deployed.

 

[smores]

I thought SCARs were already being deployed.

I thought I had replied saying this but my post never made it (thanks Tapatalk...)

But yes, the SCAR H and L were evaluated by SOCOM starting in the late 2000s and fielded in actual combat units. The L (16/5.56 variant) was canceled but as far as I know they purchased plenty of the H model and is still in use today.

Last year the Green Berets at the Andrews JSOH had a SCAR-H with an AAC can. They spoke highly of that setup.

I know a few SCAR 17S owners, and a couple have run them hard, in courses and personal use. They all say they are excellent rifles.

I personally would only buy a LaRue OBR or SCAR 17S if I felt the need for a semi-auto 7.62x51mm rifle in my collection. The M14, FAL, G3, and other .30 cal rifle platforms have been left in the dust as far as I'm concerned.

The only other 7.62x51mm rifle that is interesting is the Colt LE901, but IMO it's too new to form an opinion about. I'm not sure how much utility a multi-caliber rifle has for troops in the field but for LE/civilians it's pretty cool. I would still give the edge to the SCAR.



Si vis pacem para bellum

follow me @DiscipleofJMB