TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Part 2
20 years later. ACR wasn’t the result of the M16 suffering but rather an attempt to try and solve training and human limitations problem with a rifle. They wanted the rifle to allow the soldier in combat to somehow shoot like he was at a range. A 200% better preference vs M16A1. So they tested a number of concepts & found that not a one meet the goals. The ammunition & rifles worked just couldn’t improve over AR15 enough to just.
Objective Individual combat Rifle XM29 came about looking at the idea of computerizing the soldier’s weapon. A gun that does it all. HK & ATK won. The Army had a strict set of objectives. Technology was not ready yet. They could make the system but it was heavy and clunky. They had designed four parts. The Rifle was a modified then new HK G36C, The grenade launcher was derived from an experimental HK CAW , the Ammunition. The optic was a variable powered day and night ballistic computer camera with range finder. The Army found it was way too heavy so they decided to split it up thinking at a later date they would recombine them. The optic grenade launcher and ammunition became the XM25 which fell apart due to HK Germany and ATK.
The Carbine became the XM8. This was being pushed by PEO soldier systems as a replacement for the M16A2. It was intended to come in a number of configurations: PDW, Carbine, DMR and LMG. With a grenade launcher option. It was supposed to be lighter more reliable, more modular. It came with its own optics either a red dot with lasers in either IR or visible. Or a 3x power.
The selling points, low profile return to zero optics mount PCAPS, modern optics, a fully automatic trigger group, fully ergonomic controls, folding stock and a significantly reduced weight.
It’s failures were out of the XM29 HK & PEO were out on a limb. The Infantry school wrights the requirements for infantry weapons and XM8 didn’t have a writ. A open bidding process had gone forward for XM29 but not XM8. So any award they hadn’t opened a competition. The intended configurations also overlapped existing, fairly new, established and successful weapons. The M4, M4A1, Mk18. Well the LMG configuration of the XM8 was generally inferior to M249 and combat experience would push the DMR to a heavier caliber. The Grenade launcher XM320 could easily be and was mounted on M4.
XM8 optics and integrated lasers were of lower quality. The PCAPS system was proprietary to HK. Ergonomics of M4 acceptable and was easily improved. The M4A1 had a fully automatic trigger group. M4 had an adjustable stock already folding wasn’t needed. Finally HK wasn’t able to get significant weight savings vs M4 without sacrificing durability.
Everything the XM8 offered was matched 1:1 by M4A1. The few areas where XM8 was better weren’t enough to justify the expense.
LSAT wasn’t actually a replacement for M16 or M4 but M249. PEO Soldier asked the infantry school Ft Benning if they felt M8 would meet a doctrinal need. They got back that what was needed was a lightweight replacement for M249 Saw. The Army created the Lighteeight Small Arms Technology program they set to an LMG and Ammunition as light as possible. The Cased Telescoped Light Machine Gun at 9.8 pounds & created new ammunition types studying caseless telescoped ammunition & polymer cased teliscoped ammunition. Were a 5.56x45mm configuration. Later they developed a 7.62mm cta. However this only seems to have been a technology study. Although a derivative was offered by Textron for the NGSW if was dropped.
SCAR program. Us SOF units attempted its own program to replace M4A1 as well as adding requirements for a 7.62x51mm Battle rifle, 7.62x39mm rifle & Grenade launcher module. The reason behind the 5.56x4m carbine portion was issues Socom units were having with M4A1. They operated the M4A1 in a manor more like an LMG than a carbine resulting in premature barrel failure. Basically they were mag dumping. Assault rifles are designed for occasional mag dumps but are meant mostly for semiautomatic fire or very short bursts. When Socom tested the Mk16 Scar they found the weapons were not that great with no substantial improvement vs M4A1 farther by the point Socom, the Army and Colt added a heavier barrel to the M4A1 and the issue was resolved. The Mk16 was dropped. The 7.62x39mm died, The Mk13 grenade launcher was more trouble than it was worth. The one version that stuck the Mk17 is primarily as they didn’t have a 7.62x51mm selective fire rile in the arsenal that wasn’t M14.
Individual Carbine circa 2011. Frankly this was the Army just doing a survey to see what was new for M4A1 as a potential upgrade and what was on the market for assault rifles and ammunition. They had just gone through multiple evaluations with Congress members making noises. Army opened the doors and let industry show & Tell.
Once the M855A1 ammunition was dropped in the 5.56x45mm versions same as XM8 nothing was offered that wasn’t available in M4A1.
M27 well it did replace M16A4 in the infantry rifle squad of the USMC. Though it was a bit underhanded in how. It started as an Infantry automatic rifle program and was adopted but the Marines who it seems just didn’t want the Army’s M4A1.
2017 Interim Combat Service Rifle. This lasted maybe a couple months. It’s aim was to introduce a rifle to fill a perceived gap. As the intermediate caliber 5.56x45mm even the latest M855A1 was deemed under powered vs the proliferation of Level 4 equivalent body armor part of the Army advocated for adopting a 7.62x51mm rifle as an interim step until the next generation of combat weapons.
This was cancelled as Procurement office felt that the NGSW would IOC before ICSR would be needed.
2017 Next Generation Squad Weapon. That brings us to today. Selected April 2022 XM5 Sig Spear and XM250 Along with the 6.8x51mm round. Production is on as the protest by Lonestar Future weapons was withdrawThis got as far as it has due to the fact that first, Unlike XM8 the weapon doesn’t overlap in capabilities vs M16 and M4 which are inherently limited by the ammunition of the weapon. A 5.56x45mm round fired from
Any military spec rifle will always be operating within that ammunition’s performance envelope. Other aspects of the rifles though interesting wont justify the cost of replacement without a significant improvements in performance. Finally what likely pushed NGSW over the line was the XM157. It allows the Infantryman to take advantage of the capabilities.
That ends our M16 replacement section.
20 years later. ACR wasn’t the result of the M16 suffering but rather an attempt to try and solve training and human limitations problem with a rifle. They wanted the rifle to allow the soldier in combat to somehow shoot like he was at a range. A 200% better preference vs M16A1. So they tested a number of concepts & found that not a one meet the goals. The ammunition & rifles worked just couldn’t improve over AR15 enough to just.
Objective Individual combat Rifle XM29 came about looking at the idea of computerizing the soldier’s weapon. A gun that does it all. HK & ATK won. The Army had a strict set of objectives. Technology was not ready yet. They could make the system but it was heavy and clunky. They had designed four parts. The Rifle was a modified then new HK G36C, The grenade launcher was derived from an experimental HK CAW , the Ammunition. The optic was a variable powered day and night ballistic computer camera with range finder. The Army found it was way too heavy so they decided to split it up thinking at a later date they would recombine them. The optic grenade launcher and ammunition became the XM25 which fell apart due to HK Germany and ATK.
The Carbine became the XM8. This was being pushed by PEO soldier systems as a replacement for the M16A2. It was intended to come in a number of configurations: PDW, Carbine, DMR and LMG. With a grenade launcher option. It was supposed to be lighter more reliable, more modular. It came with its own optics either a red dot with lasers in either IR or visible. Or a 3x power.
The selling points, low profile return to zero optics mount PCAPS, modern optics, a fully automatic trigger group, fully ergonomic controls, folding stock and a significantly reduced weight.
It’s failures were out of the XM29 HK & PEO were out on a limb. The Infantry school wrights the requirements for infantry weapons and XM8 didn’t have a writ. A open bidding process had gone forward for XM29 but not XM8. So any award they hadn’t opened a competition. The intended configurations also overlapped existing, fairly new, established and successful weapons. The M4, M4A1, Mk18. Well the LMG configuration of the XM8 was generally inferior to M249 and combat experience would push the DMR to a heavier caliber. The Grenade launcher XM320 could easily be and was mounted on M4.
XM8 optics and integrated lasers were of lower quality. The PCAPS system was proprietary to HK. Ergonomics of M4 acceptable and was easily improved. The M4A1 had a fully automatic trigger group. M4 had an adjustable stock already folding wasn’t needed. Finally HK wasn’t able to get significant weight savings vs M4 without sacrificing durability.
Everything the XM8 offered was matched 1:1 by M4A1. The few areas where XM8 was better weren’t enough to justify the expense.
LSAT wasn’t actually a replacement for M16 or M4 but M249. PEO Soldier asked the infantry school Ft Benning if they felt M8 would meet a doctrinal need. They got back that what was needed was a lightweight replacement for M249 Saw. The Army created the Lighteeight Small Arms Technology program they set to an LMG and Ammunition as light as possible. The Cased Telescoped Light Machine Gun at 9.8 pounds & created new ammunition types studying caseless telescoped ammunition & polymer cased teliscoped ammunition. Were a 5.56x45mm configuration. Later they developed a 7.62mm cta. However this only seems to have been a technology study. Although a derivative was offered by Textron for the NGSW if was dropped.
SCAR program. Us SOF units attempted its own program to replace M4A1 as well as adding requirements for a 7.62x51mm Battle rifle, 7.62x39mm rifle & Grenade launcher module. The reason behind the 5.56x4m carbine portion was issues Socom units were having with M4A1. They operated the M4A1 in a manor more like an LMG than a carbine resulting in premature barrel failure. Basically they were mag dumping. Assault rifles are designed for occasional mag dumps but are meant mostly for semiautomatic fire or very short bursts. When Socom tested the Mk16 Scar they found the weapons were not that great with no substantial improvement vs M4A1 farther by the point Socom, the Army and Colt added a heavier barrel to the M4A1 and the issue was resolved. The Mk16 was dropped. The 7.62x39mm died, The Mk13 grenade launcher was more trouble than it was worth. The one version that stuck the Mk17 is primarily as they didn’t have a 7.62x51mm selective fire rile in the arsenal that wasn’t M14.
Individual Carbine circa 2011. Frankly this was the Army just doing a survey to see what was new for M4A1 as a potential upgrade and what was on the market for assault rifles and ammunition. They had just gone through multiple evaluations with Congress members making noises. Army opened the doors and let industry show & Tell.
Once the M855A1 ammunition was dropped in the 5.56x45mm versions same as XM8 nothing was offered that wasn’t available in M4A1.
M27 well it did replace M16A4 in the infantry rifle squad of the USMC. Though it was a bit underhanded in how. It started as an Infantry automatic rifle program and was adopted but the Marines who it seems just didn’t want the Army’s M4A1.
2017 Interim Combat Service Rifle. This lasted maybe a couple months. It’s aim was to introduce a rifle to fill a perceived gap. As the intermediate caliber 5.56x45mm even the latest M855A1 was deemed under powered vs the proliferation of Level 4 equivalent body armor part of the Army advocated for adopting a 7.62x51mm rifle as an interim step until the next generation of combat weapons.
This was cancelled as Procurement office felt that the NGSW would IOC before ICSR would be needed.
2017 Next Generation Squad Weapon. That brings us to today. Selected April 2022 XM5 Sig Spear and XM250 Along with the 6.8x51mm round. Production is on as the protest by Lonestar Future weapons was withdrawThis got as far as it has due to the fact that first, Unlike XM8 the weapon doesn’t overlap in capabilities vs M16 and M4 which are inherently limited by the ammunition of the weapon. A 5.56x45mm round fired from
Any military spec rifle will always be operating within that ammunition’s performance envelope. Other aspects of the rifles though interesting wont justify the cost of replacement without a significant improvements in performance. Finally what likely pushed NGSW over the line was the XM157. It allows the Infantryman to take advantage of the capabilities.
That ends our M16 replacement section.
