The U.S. Army is implementing the most dramatic overhaul of its service rifles in nearly 50 years. Our own Project Manager (PM) Soldier Weapons division is currently pursuing a “dual path” strategy that will result in significant changes to the one system that is critical to all Soldiers – their standard issue service rifle. The dual path approach consists of the continuous improvement program for the M4 Carbine, paired with a full and open carbine competition.
According to Colonel Douglas Tamilio, PM Soldier Weapons, the intent of the dual path strategy is to allow the Army to continue its practice of upgrading the combat-proven M4 while simultaneously challenging industry to develop the next generation carbine. With nearly 500,000 M4s in the Army inventory, it is critical to strengthen the M4 platform while the Army invests the time necessary to properly develop, test and field a new weapon system. The Army has already made more than 60 refinements to the current M4 Carbine since its introduction and, not surprisingly, 94 percent of Soldiers rate the M4 as an effective weapon system in Post Combat Surveys. That said, PM Soldier Weapons will continue its search for advanced small arms technologies to match Army requirements and better serve our Soldiers.
Our PEO, Brigadier General Peter N. Fuller, first communicated the dual path concept in October 2009 to foster a better understanding of the PEO Soldier strategy. The first path is the improvement plan for the M4, which is broken into three phases. For Phase I, the Army will purchase 25,000 M4A1 Carbines with ambidextrous fire control assemblies (FCA) and is preparing additional solicitations for the fall to purchase kits to convert up to 65,000 fielded M4s into M4A1s with the new FCAs. Compared to the M4, the M4A1 has a heavier barrel and is fully automatic, improvements that deliver greater sustained rates of fire. Phase II improvements will compete forward rail assemblies, bolts and bolt carrier assemblies to increase accessory integration while enhancing durability. Phase III will evaluate commercially available operating systems against the M4’s current gas impingement system. The Army’s long-term plan is to improve the entire M4 fleet. Implementation for all improvements and competitions is contingent upon funding and demonstrated performance gains over current capabilities.
The second path is the carbine competition, which received Army Review Oversight Council validation back in April and Joint Review Oversight Council (JROC) validation this August. Now the final approval authority has returned from AROC to allow work to begin on the “Request for Proposal” from industry. The carbine competition is already fully funded for research, development, testing, and evaluation. With the final approvals nearly in place, the stage is set for an inspiring competition.
Small Arms Series
Considering that millions of Soldiers have carried the M16 or its M4 sibling since the 1960s, this is naturally a topic that generates great interest in the veteran community – not to mention Congress, industry and leadership at the top levels of all the services. In light of this interest and of the significant Army small arms developments to come, PM Soldier Weapons will be publishing a series of posts over the next several months that discuss the concepts inherently tied to issues of weapon selection along with deeper dives on the M4 improvements and the carbine competition itself. The small arms series will cover the following topics:
1. Small Unit Armaments: Just as our Soldiers’ combat activities are synchronized, so are our weapon systems. M16/M4 weapons are employed alongside larger caliber 7.62mm rifles, machine guns, and grenade launchers for a combined effect. This article will provide insights as to how small units are organized and armed with various individual and crew served weapon systems that serve particular roles to enhance unit firepower and effectiveness.
2. Lethality: For decades, the “better bullet” debate has raged as to whether the 5.56mm or 7.62mm cartridge reigns supreme. While it’s impossible to close the door on this debate, we will explain that there’s more to the lethality story than just the bullet. This article will examine the aspects that contribute to Soldier lethality, including the weapon system, ammunition, optics, training, and shot placement.
3. M4 Product Improvement: This article will discuss the evolution, performance and future of the M4 Carbine that is currently the standard for our Brigade Combat Teams. The article will detail the Army’s three-phase improvement plan for the M4 Carbine and discuss how the Army will expand partnerships with industry to arrive at an even better M4.
4. Carbine Competition: The final article in the series will discuss the imminent Army test and selection of a new carbine resulting from a full and open competition among the finest weapon manufacturers in the world.
The intent of this series is to educate and inform our readers’ thinking on these matters. We look forward to sharing with you our progress and welcome your ideas on this important topic. If there are particular aspects you would like us to explore in this series, please drop us a note and we will work to address your suggestions where possible.
I certainly hope lethality is qualified not just by lab tests; but by the ability to render hors de’ combat an opponent who is under the influence of a variety of drugs. That requires a decisively destructive round.
Interesting stuff. It kind of reminds me of the Fighter Mafia(Col. John Boyd) and the competition to build a better fighter jet. The outcome was the F-16.
Why is the current M4 and the purposed M4A1 not competing side by side with the new carbines? Col. Douglas Tamilio, project manager for soldier weapons said, “The only way the M4 would be the weapon of choice is if nothing is significantly better than the M4, It’s like being a boxing champion. You don’t beat him, you don’t win — and this has to be by a knockout.” Tamilio also said, “Other organizations in the Army and DoD have looked at weapons, tried something, thought it was better, tested it, then came back and went somewhere else because they find things over long terms of testing or usage of weapons.” That has been true. Many Army systems and weapons over the years have fallen short of their claims and a through and stringent testing prior to adoption is very important. It is along these lines that the Army Times reports that “The tests (Individual Carbine competition) will determine whether the weapons maintain accuracy throughout their life cycle — something the military has not tested before. A weapon typically loses accuracy as it ages.” If it is truly a fair competition then shouldn’t ALL carbines compete? And if the data that will be collected in this new competition has never been accumulated in Army tests on Any weapon, to include the M4 and M4A1, then how can the Army know if there is a “knockout”, a ”measurable improvement” or any other yard stick of comparison? The simple truth is that the Army can’t do an honest side by side comparison. The up side of all of this is the mandate that the winner of the competition will have to “sell its technical data rights soon after” to allow at least two other manufacturers produce the weapons. However I wonder if the Army will make Colt do the same if they opt not to go with a new carbine. These are questions that the Army must answer to, otherwise the media and the soldiers will suspect that nothing has changed, that political interests and not the soldiers will decide the day and Darren Mellors’, executive vice president of LWRC International , statement “It is my belief if given the choice tomorrow, the Army would not compete a new rifle. They would like to buy more M4 carbines sole-sourced from Colt with a few handpicked incremental improvements”, will be proven correct.
This entire phasing system is out-of-whack – all of these improvements should be made at the same time, as each “improvement” can be significantly better if it is done in conjunction with other improvements.
For example: right now you’re going to swap out 65,000 lower receivers for ambidextrous lowers and buy 25,000 that are ambidextrous straight from the factory. These weapons will have a heavier barrel with a carbine-length gas system, which is very harsh on the bolt carrier and receiver extension groups. Due to the harshness of this system, you will shortly thereafter install new bolt carrier groups that are more adequately suited for the harshness of the system, and will buy rail systems based around the carbine-length gas system, which severely limits your options in regards to rails. Finally, you’re going to look at replacing the entire operating system.
This is completely backwards from how it should be. The type of operating system determines what kind of bolt carrier group, receiver extension group, and rail system, and also determines where the barrel will be ported. So the very first thing you should do is determine what operating system you’re going to have – is it going to be a carbine-length piston system like in the HK416, or is it going to be a mid-length direct impingement system? Either one will require either a different port position or a different size port for the task at hand, so you shouldn’t choose a barrel before you first choose an operating system. From that follows what kind of bolt carrier group you’re going to use. And the last thing you should be looking at is what kind of rail system are you going to use, which is entirely dependent on what kind of operating system and barrel you’re going to use.
But whom am I? Nobody will listen to this bit of sanity. Instead we’re going to spend millions of dollars to produce a subpar system that is outperformed by hundreds of thousands of civilian weapons. I fully expect the Army to completely **** this up.
What this system needs is a “power supply” for all the add-on/clip-on features such as scopes, infrared aiming devices etc. The various batteries and the associated volumes of batteries to support the Warfighter could surely be reduced and ease the strain of the supply chain while enhancing the warfighters capabilities.
“Just as our Soldiers’ combat activities are synchronized, so are our weapon systems…”
… in an ideal, doctrinally sound and fully digitally simulated world.
The rest can not be said for real life in the sandbox/rockpile.
Come on over here and have a look for yourself… or just do some honest ‘non-attributional’ AAR’s with some of the guys over here.
“For decades, the “better bullet” debate has raged as to whether the 5.56mm or 7.62mm cartridge reigns supreme…”
… but many have already accepted the FACT that it is neither 5.56 OR 7.62. PEO/DOD seems to remain willfully ignorant.
And don’t spew some pablum about “this would add too many new ammunition or parts to account for in the system…” because that is bogus and does not fly.
How many individual DODICs and DODACs are there?
How many individual NSNs?
Please.
“…we will explain that there’s more to the lethality story than just the bullet. This article will examine the aspects that contribute to Soldier lethality, including the weapon system, ammunition, optics, training, and shot placement.”
Really?
Please… enlighten us oh wise ones…
I’d be _very_ interested in hearing how the army will make up for it’s generally horrid and insignificant marksmanship training.
Are we finally going to get a 500m KD range and actually teach MARKSMANSHIP or continue to teach our soldiers to just toss lead downrange and game the system by saving their 300m rounds for the closer targets?
This should be fun.
~DA
The Army is currently reviewing powered “hot” rail technology and continues to monitor industry developments on this front. In fact, NATO is also studying the issue and has issued its own requests to industry in its search for standardized power and communications protocols.
COL Doug Tamilio
PM SOLDIER WEAPONS
Justin,
The intent of the M4 Product Improvement Program is to provide our Soldiers with increased capability as soon as possible. By design, Phase I quickly puts the improved M4A1 capability into the hands of Soldiers. This upgrade is in direct response to Soldier requests for increased sustained rates of fire, a consistent trigger pull, and improved ergonomics. Note that the M4 was designed to accept the upgrades we are looking at without the need to change out the lower receiver.
Phase II addresses specific areas in the near team that were identified by the Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning where we could potentially achieve enhancements to the M4’s reliability, durability and accuracy.
As for Phase III, the timing is to be determined. As you know, we are concurrently holding a Carbine Competition where we will learn a great deal about the best operating system technologies currently available by industry. That said, the operating system review of Phase III, would not design around enhancements completed in Phases I or II. It would examine the potential upgrade of the complete upper receiver and the accompanying components.
COL Doug Tamilio
PM Soldier Weapons
Thanks for your comment, Seamus.
In answer to your question, the fact is that the carbines will not actually compete against one another, rather they will be competing against performance requirements outlined in the “Request for Proposal” document that will be released to industry. Those requirements are based on years of actual performance data collected by the Army on the M16/M4 family of weapons. As the intent of the competition is to identify systems that are more effective, reliable and accurate than the current fleet of Army service rifles, any carbine that fails to exceed the performance characteristics M16/M4 series of weapons won’t excel in the competition.
As for your comment regarding the technical data rights, you should know that the Army does in fact have a license to compete the M4 design for production and will be doing just that when it holds a full and open competition this fall for the manufacture of more than 25,000 improved M4A1s.
COL Doug Tamilio
PM Soldier Weapons