Another M4/16 replacement failing?

[Rocket J Squrriel]

https://www.armytimes.com/opinion/comme ... s-program/

On all key technical measures, the Next Generation Squad Weapons program is imploding before Army’s very eyes. The program is on mechanical life support, with its progenitors at the Joint Chiefs obstinately now ramming the program through despite spectacularly failing multiple civilian-sector peer reviews almost immediately upon commercial release.

Indeed the rifle seems cursed from birth. Even the naming has failed. Army recently allowed a third-party company to scare it off the military designation M5. The re-naming will certainly also help scupper bad public relations growing around ‘XM-5′ search results.

Civilian testing problems have, or should have, sunk the program already. The XM-5/7 as it turns out fails a single round into a mud test. Given the platform is a piston-driven rifle it now lacks gas, as the M-16 was originally designed, to blow away debris from the eject port. Possibly aiming to avoid long-term health and safety issues associated with rifle gas, Army has selected an operating system less hardy in battlefield environments. A choice understandable in certain respects, however, in the larger scheme the decision presents potentially war-losing cost/benefit analysis.

Civilian testing, testing Army either never did or is hiding, also only recently demonstrated that the rifle seemingly fails, at point-blank ranges, to meet its base criteria of penetrating Level 4 body armor (unassisted). True, the Army never explicitly set this goal, but it has nonetheless insinuated at every level, from media to Congress, that the rifle will penetrate said armor unassisted. Indeed, that was the entire point of the program. Of course, the rounds can penetrate body armor with Armor Piercing rounds, but so can 7.62x51mm NATO, even 5.56x45mm NATO.

It also mentions that all the bullets are suppose to be armor piercing using tungsten. The biggest supplier, who can't actually supply enough of it, is....China. Oh and the sights are nice but have issues including parts made in....you guessed it...China.

[Nik_SpeakerToCats]

If I was into 'conspiracy' theory, I'd be wondering what 'Black Projects' this hapless mess was sponsoring...

~Um, if not tungsten for body-armour piercing, what about tool-steel ??

[kdahm]

There's also the usual pre-introduction doom and gloom articles saying that any given system is terrible, won't work, is much worse than it's predecessor, and otherwise a total waste of money. Strange how many of those don't pan out.

[clancyphile]

You know... the private civilian industry had come up with AR-15s in 6.8mm SPC, .308 Winchester, even .338 Lapua (which would kick the ass of the current generation of sniper rifles).

Why not look there? Why all this new stuff?

[Rocket J Squrriel]

You know... the private civilian industry had come up with AR-15s in 6.8mm SPC, .308 Winchester, even .338 Lapua (which would kick the ass of the current generation of sniper rifles).

Why not look there? Why all this new stuff?

Its simple.... Its NEW & TRANSFORMATIVE!

Then there are a few conspiracy threads that the new ammo is to reduce the amounts of 5.56 & .223 available.

[gtg947h]

I seem to remember the direct impingement system being held in lower regard than piston setups, at least years ago. It was thought to be cleaner and less could've to fouling. Now it's good? But I generally drifted off of gun forums years ago. Maybe just a case of "we don't like the new stuff!"

I can tell you that even "normal" DI rifles will jam up if you block the ejection port with enough stuff... leaned up against a tree in a match once and jammed it on the last target. Cost me what would have been my best stage...

[OSCSSW]

There's also the usual pre-introduction doom and gloom articles saying that any given system is terrible, won't work, is much worse than it's predecessor, and otherwise a total waste of money. Strange how many of those don't pan out.

Watch out kdahm, your starting to think like me. That is never a good thing for anyone!

[Pdf27]

I seem to remember the direct impingement system being held in lower regard than piston setups, at least years ago. It was thought to be cleaner and less could've to fouling. Now it's good? But I generally drifted off of gun forums years ago. Maybe just a case of "we don't like the new stuff!"

It's different failure modes. Gas piston designs reduce the amount of gas vented into the receiver, reducing contamination. At the same time, this gas has to go somewhere and in the AR15 design blows out of the gas port to blow away incoming contamination (mud, etc.) which is an advantage of direct impingement. The piece itself is a hit piece, mentioning the one failure mode where behaviour is worse and ignoring the other where it's better.

[M.Becker]

Could the problem be less the rifle and more the round? That's this miracle performing 5.56 replacement. I remember more than one guy saying the whole idea was silly because 5.56 or even 7.62*39 for that matter are ok and rifles are not terribly important on the modern battlefield.

Who knows, maybe recent events had the army changing it's prioities?

[Rocket J Squrriel]

Could the problem be less the rifle and more the round? That's this miracle performing 5.56 replacement. I remember more than one guy saying the whole idea was silly because 5.56 or even 7.62*39 for that matter are ok and rifles are not terribly important on the modern battlefield.

Who knows, maybe recent events had the army changing it's prioities?

Well the round is suppose to generate higher pressures then any other type so who knows if its impacting the rifle? Going to be interesting in terms of logistics with others countries because I haven't heard is anyone else is converting to it.

[Nightwatch2]

Could the problem be less the rifle and more the round? That's this miracle performing 5.56 replacement. I remember more than one guy saying the whole idea was silly because 5.56 or even 7.62*39 for that matter are ok and rifles are not terribly important on the modern battlefield.

Who knows, maybe recent events had the army changing it's prioities?

Well the round is suppose to generate higher pressures then any other type so who knows if its impacting the rifle? Going to be interesting in terms of logistics with others countries because I haven't heard is anyone else is converting to it.

and carrying a third less ammo in a combat load because of the weight. How well is that going to work out?

I don't know one way or another. I'm intrigued by the new round and rifle, but then, I don't have to carry a combat load up and down hills.

[M.Becker]

Well the round is suppose to generate higher pressures then any other type so who knows if its impacting the rifle?

My bad, I thought this was just a bit spicier than 6.5 Creeedmoor but it's A LOT more. Higher MV out of a much shorter barrel.

Could very well be that the rifle isn't robust enough because it needs to meet a weight limit too. The bullet construction is certainly 'interesting' and I bet expensive.