The C7 Assault Rifle, M16, & AR15 family (C7A1, C7A2, C7 replacment, and C7 vs M16)

[Da_man]

From what i've heard we should all have the C7A2 within a year.   Now that means were not getting anything new FOR A LONG TIME.  
But now there are new rifles coming out, like the XM8.    According to this XM8 - US M4 System Comparison http://www.hksystems.com.au/pages/XM8.htm , the XM8 is superior in every way. Its cheaper, takes a lot less time to clean, etc.   Could we have waited a year or two to replace the C7A1 and get that instead?

 

[Infanteer]

Personally, I think the Armalite family of rifles (is that the proper term?) is fine; a combat weapon that has been proven with 30 years of use that has gotten most of the kinks out (unfortunately, at the cost of blood of soldiers using them in Vietnam).  I wish we could have seen the recent changes reflect more of what the guys actually using them felt were needed:

http://nightoperations.com/Doc/Infantry-Rifle-Carbine1.pdf

This fancy new rifle may be a superior rifle.  But the kicker is the word may.  I'm not willing to accept that we should have waited 2 years to replace our proven and still very effective rifle wholesale for something we have yet to see in action.  I would like to see a small number bought a distrributed to a sort of test unit (like the Panzer Lehr Division?) that can get a real idea of how the things actually perform.

 

[MG34]

The C7A2 is a good idea but poorly executed,the days of 500m shots in a large European Plain,are over,combat now takes place at ranges of 300m or less (more on the less),anything beyond 300m is the realm of the support weapon (C9,C6,40mm,etc).The C7A2 shoud have came standard with a 16 in barrel,not the 20in as it has now.As well real user input should have been asked for "this is what you are getting , is this better than what you had before" line of questioning. the question should have been what do you NEED.
The XM8 is all but dead,but may see use in some limited numbers.
The M4 carbine will be the most likely basis for the new US rifle,in a product improved design.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Armytimes.com has a different outlook on the fate of the XM8:

Issue Date: August 30, 2004

XM8 update: Your fix is in
Thanks to soldier feedback, the Army's expected next rifle will be lighter, fire faster and sight better

By Matthew Cox
Times staff writer


The Army is about to enter the final round of testing on what is well on its way to becoming your next weapon. The second-generation XM8s sport more than a dozen soldier-inspired refinements that weapons experts hope will help them convince Army leaders to adopt the new family of weapons in early 2005.
Until then, the new prototypes â ” 17 carbines, 15 compacts and 14 designated marksman versions â ” are slated for more soldier evaluation through the fall and winter.

The Army developed the XM8 in late 2003 as part of a longer-range effort to perfect an over-and-under style weapon, known as the XM29, developed by Alliant Techsystems and Heckler and Koch.

The XM29 fires special air-bursting projectiles and standard 5.56mm ammunition. But it is still too heavy and unwieldy to meet Army requirements.

The Army decided to perfect each of XM29's components separately, so soldiers can take advantage of new technology sooner. The parts would be brought back together when lighter materials become available. The XM8 is one of those components.

The weapon was tested in lab conditions, and by soldiers in the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized).

â Å“Every time we take it to the field Army, they tell us to leave it with them,â ? Brig. Gen. James Moran, head of Project Executive Office Soldier, said at a June 14 Pentagon briefing.

Soldiers reacted positively, but they also had plenty of ideas for making the XM8 more effective on the battlefield.

The new prototypes â ” standard carbine, compact carbine and designated marksman models â ” include changes that make the XM8 more reliable, easier to operate and lighter to carry, said Col. Michael Smith, head of Project Manager Soldier Weapons.

â Å“We did not try to build the perfect weapon the first time,â ? Smith said. â Å“We did make a lot of changes. Soldiers definitely affected the design of the second generation.â ?

One of the more challenging changes involved redesigning backup iron sights.

The XM8 relies on special optics for its primary aiming system. There's a short-range version with a red aiming dot and a long-range version for use by marksmen. But soldiers always want the traditional front and rear iron sights, since anything electronic can fail, Smith said.

The backup sights fold down into the hand guard and carrying handle when not in use.

â Å“I'm very happy with the way it turned out; it's put out of the way until you need it,â ? Smith said. The original design was trashed, he said, because it called for the backup sight to be built into the optic.

â Å“What if it is smashed? That's why [soldiers] wanted it to be separate.â ?

Both optics have also been improved on the prototypes.

The battery life for each has increased from 110 hours to 400. And the new designs feature a lever-style clamping mechanism for attaching the optics to the weapon instead of the screws that soldiers tended to strip during testing.

Both the short-range and long-range optics have a built-in infrared pointer and illuminator similar to the PEQ2 attachment soldiers currently use on the M4 carbine. Plus, there's more range on the pointer and illuminator â ” designers upped it from 600 meters to 800 on both optics. Soldiers can focus the pointer and illuminator on the long range or 4x optic while the same infrared features on the short-range or unity optic remain fixed.

Better aim

Developers said the full-auto capability should be more reliable now that they have increased the rate of fire by 25 to 50 rounds per minute. The change makes the XM8 capable of firing 850 rpm.

â Å“We did the change to give us better a capability in nasty environments like the desert,â ? Smith said, explaining that the higher rate should help push more sand and grit out of the chamber when firing. â Å“You get a little more force blowing that stuff out of there.â ?

The Army changed from full-auto to three-round burst on the M16A2 in the 1980s when the service decided most soldiers did not fire effectively in the full-auto mode.

But weapons experts now say a soldier using three-round bursts is no more effective than one well-trained in the use of fully automatic fire.

Unlike the first generation, the designated marksman and automatic rifle models are now the same weapon, except the automatic rifle will be fielded with a special 100-round, drum magazine. The designated marksman variant will use the 30-round magazine used on the standard carbine.

The high-capacity magazine, which can be used in all the XM8 models, is intended to give commanders the option to beef up a squad's volume of fire beyond the current M249 squad automatic weapon, which is belt-fed and equipped with quick-changing barrels.

â Å“We are not proposing that we replace the M249 in the light machine gun role,â ? Smith said. The XM8 squad auto rifle's barrel can be changed but the process takes too long to perform in the middle of a firefight, he said.

â Å“It's not designed to give you that continuous high rate of fire the machine gun will give you,â ? Smith said.

Lighter load

The second generation XM8s include several ergonomic improvements, such as new ridges or knurls added to the cocking lever for a better grip. They also are about 15 percent lighter than the first prototypes, Smith said. That's about a pound less on the carbine model which now weighs in at 7.14 pounds with optic and loaded 30-round magazine. An M4 carbine with its standard attachments and a 30-round magazine weighs about 8.5 pounds, he said.

The prototypes are black, but Smith said the final production models would most likely be a solid earth-tone since the Army's recently approved Army Combat Uniform has no black in the new digital pattern. Camouflage tests have shown that black is too easily detected during movement, Smith said.

The Army's senior leadership is scheduled to make a decision on replacing the M16 with the XM8 in February, Smith said.

There were plans to possibly field the XM8 to two infantry brigades in 2005, but Congress chose not to provide the roughly $27 million needed for the purchase in the fiscal 2005 budget or in supplemental funding, Smith said.

The Army could still begin fielding in 2005, but the money would have to come from existing programs, Smith said.

Before those decisions are made, however, the second-generation XM8s are slated to go through desert testing in Arizona in September, tropic testing in Panama in October and arctic testing in Alaska in December. A limited user test, involving an undisclosed, active infantry division is also scheduled for October, Smith said.

â Å“As always, we are testing the changes to verify them,â ? Smith said. â Å“We want the very best for our soldiers. They deserve it.â ?

 

[Matt_Fisher]

For a Huuuuuuuuuge discussion on the XM8 vs. AR system (M-16/C-7/M-4/C-8) have a look at this Tolstoyian sized discussion thread on Lightfighter which I'd suggest you have a look at for more information on this topic.

http://lightfighter.net/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=7336015661&f=7206084761&m=2356046934

XM8 looks interesting, but I don't see Canada switching to it anytime soon being that the CFs are so cash-strapped as it is, especially when a Canadian manufacturer exists with Diemaco who're pretty much in bed with the AR system of small-arms manufacture.

The only possibility for XM8 with the CFs may be as part of the Small Arms Replacement Project II which as indicated by the Defence Planning & Management office as not occuring for at least 11-15 years from now and the program has identified that it will either replace or upgrade the current small arms in service.  Meaning that the C7/c8 family might get another overhaul rather than be replaced.
http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/dgsp/pubs/rep-pub/ddm/scip/annex/ct04_e.asp#36.5

Personally, I like our very own KevinB's proposed C7A3 as being the future small arms platform for the CFs that MG34 provided the link to.  Good work Kevin!  Lets hope that the higher ups have the balls to admit that someone without a Queen's Commission or an MBA in "Systems Development" can come up with some well researched and firmly grounded observations and recommendations and at least trial the C7A3 concept rather than funnel money into the C7A2 cash cow.

 

[MG34]

Let's not forget the XM8 is still just a contender,nothing will be decided until 2005 at the earliest since the budget for it has been cut it looks closer to 2009 provided they can salvage funds. The PIP M4 is right now a very likely candidate as well. I am all for the XM8,provided they get the bugs ironed out of it,even the G36 is having problems and it has been in service for 5 yrs now. When considering the cost of replacing every M16 and M4 in the US Army a retrofit of the existing M16 and M4 carbine stocks (ala C7A2) seems more likely than not.
As for SARP III who knows what wonders the folks at DLR have in store for us,thankfully by that time I won't have to worry about it.

 

[KevinB]

XM-8 (and yes I have handled it) is a POS IMHO.


There is no reason to adopt a new system that is not revolutionary  - it would be a horrendous mistake and waste of money.


Look into SCAR-L and SCAR-H as the new US Army system...  The Army signed on to adopt what USSOC types clasifies from the SCAR trials...

Diemaco is involved...

 

[jonsey]

Ok, I'm talking about the round thing that's sticking out of the right side of the rifle, between the stock and the casing ejection port. What does it do, and why is the AR-15 the only rifle family I've seen with one?

 

[Andyd513]

hitting it with the palm of your hand is meant to help push the bolt that last bit forward into proper position for an initial shot.

 

[KevinB]

Many other rifles (M1,M14, FNC (but not FAL) ) have reciproacting charging handles that allwo you to force the bolt home if obstructed - the M16 series did not and the forward assit was added to the M16A1 to facilitate the locking the bolt when the chamber was fouled or for what ever reason the round was nto properly seated.

 

[1feral1]

hitting it with the palm of your hand is meant to help push the bolt that last bit forward into proper position for an initial shot.

On the M16A2/M4/C7 hitting may be the wrong word, more like ' pushing with thumb', as hitting or striking with the palm of your hand may cause a bigger problem.

That M16A1 'mod' Kevin mentioned first appeared in 1968 on all rifles less the ones used by the USAF. Theirs too, were modified in time, and in the early 1980s when the A2 appeared the design was changed from 'tear drop' shaped to round.

Other mods to the A1 from the original c.1965 M16 were the replacement of a chrome bolt and carrier, a new 'bird cage' flash suppressor, chrome bore, modified lower reciever which a raised 'guard' around the mag release was brought in, an improved bolt stop (hold open), and improved butt (butt trap and butt plate, and a different sling swivel). Also early M16s had a 1/14" twist, and this later was changed to 1/12" (5.56 x 45mm   M193).

Out of the approx 5000 M16A1 rifles still in service here, all are pre-1970 purchase/lend lease Viet Nam issue ( I have seen some with notches cut into the pistol grip and stock   :warstory , and many are actually pre 1968s, some marked XM16E1 by Colt with 5 digit serial numbers, others are post 1968 Colts (marked AR-15, M16A1, or a specific model number, and US Govt Property). Others are made by GM (General Motors). All now have the A1 uppers, and all the A1 mods, but as of last year the odd one was still old style, less the fwd assist. Many were tagged back in the 1970s, and had been in storage since then.

There are M4s on A2 lowers, and since the late 90s, Colt M4s (1/7") and Bushmaster (1/9") similar type wpns. These are all strictly for SF use.

The F88 Austeyr still incorperates a forward assist right on the cocking handle, but I have never used it, nor is it in the trg pam either.

Euro AUG rifles with the folding cocking handle have done away with the forward asssist. Australia trialed this folding thing, but it failed to pass trials, as the rifle was difficult to **** (cockk) when certain optics were used on the Picatinny rail.

 

[NavyGrunt]

On the M16A2/M4/C7 hitting may be the wrong word, more like ' pushing with thumb', as hitting or striking with the palm of your hand may cause a bigger problem.

We were taught to hit the forward assist. And do it with the palm and fairly hard. Because if you DIDNT do that it could cause a problem....could you explain what the problem you see with hitting tyhe forward assist is?

 

[MikeM]

My Pl Cmd this summer said the same thing to us.. that we should press it with our thumb. Apparently hitting causes "wear and tear" on the weapon.Needless to say I will continue "hitting" the forward assist with my palm because I want to know that when it comes time to fire, my wepon is going to fire.

Wear and tear? Not really.. I haven't heard anything about wear and tear being a problem with the FA.

 

[chrisf]

After cocking the weapon, I always tap the foreward assist with my thumb, just because it's part of the drill, and it's a good habit to have.

When doing it as part of a "bolt fully foreward" IA, I always make sure to give it a good solid smack with the heel of my hand. Fighting from trenches in Shilo (Or anywhere sandy for that matter) gives you a major appreciation for how fast weapons can jam.

 

[1feral1]

We were taught to hit the forward assist. And do it with the palm and fairly hard. Because if you DIDNT do that it could cause a problem....could you explain what the problem you see with hitting the forward assist is?

Aaron. Read the CF pam. I am not going to get into OPSEC here, but go to your unit and read the pam.

I reckon what you do in the field is your business, but abuse your wpn during trg, and you'll do the same in the real world, and others will copy you. Lead by example. You cant go wrong there.

The damage caused from repeated hit and strikes will damage the forward assist, and mar the seriations on the carrier. Then when you need to use it, the fwd assist may just 'strip' on these seriations, and nothing will happen. I have seen this before, so it can happen. Remember, in battle the only thing sure is Murphy's Law.

After rebuilding 100s upon 100s of these weapons, I have seen it all when it comes to failures and things wearing and breaking.

As for the C7 stopping up in trg, blame that on the blanks, and the sand combined. If ball was used, you'd be a more happy camper.

Again, I gotta get to work, or I'll be late.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[Andyd513]

Ah Wes thanks for answerring a big question I've had. We were taught during my basic to press with the thumb, so I learned all my drills doing it that way. Once I got back to my unit we did basic handling again almost immediately, and a Master Corporal made sure in no unclear terms that we were to hit the forward assist with the palm of our hands at all times. Being good little no-hooks, we alterred our drills.

Now I know I really wasn't wrong!

 

[jonsey]

Ah, so that's what it does. Good to know. Thanks guys.

 

[NavyGrunt]

Thanks Wes. I see what you mean and it makes total sense.

 

[Inch]

When did it change to pressing with your thumb? Any of you crusty old infantry types know? When I was in the militia, we were taught to hit the forward assist with the palm of your hand.  Same thing was taught by the Patricias and Royals at CFLRS when I went through there in 99.  I will admit I haven't done a PWT in about 3 years.  Has anyone done a PWT recently that can confirm the thumb vice the palm?

Cheers

 

[MG34]

The forward assit has got to be the most useless item ever included on any rifle.if the round is not chambering it is for good reason,it makes no sense compounding the reason by jamming the round in.If you do your drills properly and conduct proper maintenance there is no use for it.