Army M4 replacement RFP

[Dan 177]

Article : My link

 

April 18/11: In published responses to questions from industry over Draft RFP W15QKN-11-R-F003, the US Army has laid out a schedule for its “Individual Carbine”. The RFP is expected in May 2011, with Phase 1 evaluations from July to October 2011, and Phase 2 evaluations extending to July 2012. The contracts, if any, would be awarded in October 2012, followed by even more evaluations of the remaining contenders, lasting until March 2013. While there is no caliber or mechanical type requirement, the Army may not choose to do anything, in the end. It is openly espousing a “dual path” strategy to upgrade existing M4s, even as it launches this competition. Given a long past history of declaring that new designs don’t offer enough benefits over existing M4s to justify a purchase, outside observers can be forgiven any skepticism they may have over the Army’s determination to field anything else when all is said and done.

 

Looks like HK and FN are all over this with the SCAR and 416. I wonder if there is a US based company with a product that can rise to the challenge. I thought the Bushy ACR was supposed to be a contender.. unless the Army thought it was too expensive to even compete.

[Vlad G 345]

Well FN is kinda US based right now, plus there is LMT, etc. Of course, this is likely to be yet another round of "That neat, but does not provide a meaningful advantage over the M4, thanx for playing".

[raz-0 1,259]

Article : My link

Looks like HK and FN are all over this with the SCAR and 416. I wonder if there is a US based company with a product that can rise to the challenge. I thought the Bushy ACR was supposed to be a contender.. unless the Army thought it was too expensive to even compete.

 

Seeing as both failed in the past, I'm not sure why this time would be different. The ACR would be new to the table, but I don't see what would make it win anything this time around either. You also have the colt multi-caliber offering.

 

The AR-15 platform is a pretty solid design. About the only thing it would really benefit from is a better dust cover that keeps things out other than when ejecting brass. Maybe this go round they will abandon the crappy telescoping stock that looks like it was blow molded out of used soda bottles.

[Shane45 807]

Something to consider is that the next round will likely be single platforms that are capable of going 5.5.6 or 7.62. This was the reason the SCAR16 contract ended. The multi cal reciever version SCAR makes the 5.56 only version a bad choice. Why buy one that can only do 5.56 when you can buy essentially the same rifle that can be configured either way depending on its destination. This is, in my opinion, why colt busted it hump to get a unit in production that can do this as well. I am unaware of an ACR, XCR or HK platform that can do this. But it dont mean it aint tucked away somewhere . I didnt read the RFP to see if it included a multi cal req. Ill see what inside info I can dig up.

[Vlad G 345]

Shane you are closer to this then most, but .. wouldn't the logistics of convertible rifles be a nightmare? Either the individual soldier would have to keep track of his own conversion kits or the armorer would have to drag around TWICE the number of parts, spare uppers, wear parts, etc. Then there is the issue of having ammo on hand for both in the proper ratio etc. Seems like a logistics nightmare to me, give the performance claimed by the new M855A1 ammo (and SOST, mk262, etc)

[Shane45 807]

Brother its pure speculation on my part but my theory is that the rifles would be configured at the depot level for final destination and that only teir one groups would actually be given the kits in full form so that they can outfit per mission reqs. The reason I think this is because I did ask that very same question and the answer I recieved was that many spec ops groups are deployed far and long and indeed need the capapbility to reconfigure in the field to execute multiple missions with varying operational requirements etc etc . Like you I see this as potentially ugly in terms of logistics. And this is where I think an argument can be successfully made for a more intermediate round like 6.8 or 6.5g..... and this in fact may be a tie in. Again pure speculation on my part but if the wonder caliber does come along, the recievers are already capable so it would be easy to retrofit to said wondercaliber across the board.

[Cylinder Head 22]

If multi-caliber is the new move than Colt's new CM901 will probably be a front runner. That being said I have doubts that anything short of a complete REVOLUTION in small arms will replace the M4.

 

In before "They should adopt a bullpup" or "Maybe they'll switch to the 6.8" followed by "The 6.5 Grendel is way better bro".

[JackDaWack 2,895]

What about price?

[Vlad G 345]

A while ago I read that the army was buying more M4s. When I did the math on package price divided by the number of guns they were buying I think it worked to $1800 per gun. Do you think price really matters?

[SSlav 14]

A while ago I read that the army was buying more M4s. When I did the math on package price divided by the number of guns they were buying I think it worked to $1800 per gun. Do you think price really matters?

 

Vlad did that include any kind of service contracts - like spare parts and refurbishing?

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Interesting... I'm betting a portion of this effort will take place here at picatinny...

[Vlad G 345]

Vlad did that include any kind of service contracts - like spare parts and refurbishing?

 

http://kitup.military.com/2011/02/army-asks-for-m4a1-in-fy-2012.html You tell me.

[Vlad G 345]

This just got VERY wacky. Here is a list of Q&A regarding the RFP: http://www.scribd.com/doc/55588787/US-Army-IC-Q-A18-APR-2011

 

Some interesting tidbits:

 

They want hyper burst, but they don't care if it hits anything?

 

23. By “ hyper-burst “, do you mean controlled burst?

RESPONSE: “Hyper-burst” is defined as “A firing mode that provides multiple/two rounds on target/aim point with a single trigger pull, with the shooter only perceiving single-shot recoil without the muzzle jump/muzzle climb associated with standard burst and/or full automatic firing” and appears in paragraph 6.7 of AR-PD-173 with the other definitions.

148. Firing Modes: “Hyper Burst” is requested as an Objective Requirement for the IC. What is the required accuracy (burst dispersion) on target in inches and at what range? (i.e. all rounds within a 2 inch tile at 25 meters).

RESPONSE: AR-PD-173 has no accuracy requirement for this. Having the function will suffice.

 

Interesting accuracy requierment, just under 2MOA, except the ammo spec is higher then that. I'm not sure I'm understanding this. Oh wait, is extreme spread measured as the max deviation for any round from the center of the group? If so they are looking for a 3.3moa gun at 300 yards out of 3.3 moa ammo, but it is an objective requirement not a threshold, so its on the "it would be nice if" list.

 

35.

Page 6 of original RFP, 3.4.1 b) Please define “90% probability”. For example: 9 out of 10 rounds

of the 10-round group meet the requirement.

RESPONSE: IC system accuracy (technical measurement of dispersion) shall be 5-inch mean

radius at 300 meters throughout barrel life. Methodology: From the data collected the Mean

Radius will be calculated at each interval. When the mean radius exceeds 5 inches that barrel

will be replaced with a new barrel and an initial 3x10 round groups will be fired. This process

will continue throughout the reliability sub-test. Once the reliability sub-test is completed a

Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) will be made for the Characteristic Barrel Life. The

Characteristic Life will be the Barrel Life for that weapon where it will meet the dispersion

requirement.

Shall be 5” extreme spread at 300 meters throughout barrel life with

0.9 probability and shall be 10” extreme spread at 600 me

ters throughout barrel life with 0.9 probability. Methodology:

From the data collected the extreme spread will be calculated at each interval. The barrels will

be replaced when the Mean Radius criteria has been exceeded. Once the reliability sub-test is

completed a MLE will be made to determine the Characteristic Barrel Life. The Characteristic Life

is used to determine the 0.9 probability where sample barrels should maintain the 5 inch

extreme spread. The sample of barrels will then be assessed at against this estimate. Ninety (90)

percent of the barrels in the sample need to be at or above this estimate.

118.

The IC objective requirement of a 5 inch extreme spread at 300 m correlates to a 1.46 MOA

extreme spread. It appears the objective requirement is not achievable with M855A1

ammunition (3.3 MOA in a test barrel). In addition, the objective requirement seems 3 times

more severe than the threshold. Please confirm that this is, in fact, the correct interpretation of

the requirements.

RESPONSE: Per AR-PD-173, paragraph 3.4.1 b - c, the objective requirement is a 90% probability

of not greater than 5" extreme spread when firing at 300 meters and 90% probability of not

greater than 10" extreme spread when firing at 600 meters.

 

Open to anyone in the world, including Izmash and their hyperburst AN94

 

45.

Why is the Government not requiring all bidders to have a US presence upon contract award?

RESPONSE: No statutory requirement exists. Therefore, it is desired not required.

 

 

This is an interesting one, does the bellow mean that they don't consider the H&K 416, SCAR-L, etc as being sufficient?

 

48.

Is the charging handle on the currently fielded IC considered “ambidextrous?”

 

RESPONSE: There are no currently fielded ICs.

 

 

WTF does THIS mean?

 

51.

Is chrome lined barrel considered an environmental pollutant?

RESPONSE: Yes.

 

This seems like a dick move, M855A1 is basically "secret" nevermind that with rounds being given to soldiers by the plane load it won't be really secret for long, and people trying to design rifles that work with it can't obtain any or even its specs.

 

54.

What temperatures will the weapon be heated to?

RESPONSE: 160F

72.

Does the US Army plan on providing pressure data for the M855A1 when fired at 160 deg F and -

60 deg F, in accordance with TOP 3-2-045?

RESPONSE: No.

214.

Will the M855A1 be made available for test purposes prior to sample submission deadline?

RESPONSE: No. The Government previously made available the M855A1 available for vendors

through HP White Familiarization Shoot.

216.

Will the Army allow Lake City to sell M855A1 to potential vendors for the IC?

RESPONSE: No.

 

So they want hyperburst, but not very badly

 

74.

Please clarify the intent of specification that only have an Objective requirement?

RESPONSE: If there is no threshold requirement, then the requirement is desired but not

required.

 

No, we won't change the weight requirement, yes we will, WTF Over?

 

106.

Will the weight requirement be adjusted to accommodate a caliber modular weapon, larger

than 5.56mm?

RESPONSE: No. The weight requirement addresses soldier mobility and capability and will not

be changed.

107.

The weight of the weapon is based on a full magazine with a magazine capacity that is

unspecified. This causes an inconsistency between competitors using different size magazine

capacities. Please specify the weight of the weapon without the magazine.

RESPONSE: The requirement regarding weight is currently being reviewed. Updates will be

specified in the revised Purchase Description (AR-PD-173).

 

They want a match trigger not the old heavy stuff, good

 

113.

Is the precision match trigger group requirement to work both in full auto and semi auto firing

modes?

RESPONSE: The additional precision match trigger is for semi-automatic, but full auto must still

function.

238.

Can the precision trigger be a two stage trigger?

RESPONSE: No.

239.

a. The main trigger is a single stage b. Match trigger does not specify single or two stage.

RESPONSE: A. Yes; B. Single stage.

240.

Is a single stage trigger preferred for the IC precision trigger group?

RESPONSE: Yes

 

They don't want a modular weapon bad enough to ask for it or give it any extra points

 

156.

Merit for Modularity and IC Variants: Will special consideration or merit be afforded proposals

and candidates that offer the following modularity and variants?

RESPONSE: Modularity is not a part of the requirement

157.

Merit for Modularity and IC Variants

A.Caliber Modularity (conversion from one caliber to another by the operator without

special tools).

B.Barrel Length Modularity (barrel exchange by the operator without special tools).

C.Buttstock Modularity (the ability to remove or exchange buttstock styles by the operator

without tools to; no buttstock (i.e. butt cap only), sliding/retractable/collapsible buttstock,

folding buttstock and/or sniper/DM buttstock options).

D.Feed System Modularity (the ability to exchange the feed system/feed source/feed chute

by the operator without tools to allow firing from box magazines, to drum magazines, to

belted ammunition and/or to alternative calibers).

RESPONSE: Modularity is not a part of the requirement

 

I predict a shortage of Krylon as everyone will be painting their guns because the Army no longer wants black ones. Stock up now on all your spray paint needs.

 

204.

Can ANY of the IC's external small components be black in color (i.e. levers, trigger, rails, etc..)?

RESPONSE: All external parts and/or exterior surfaces must be non-black.

 

 

This whole thing looks like the Army is asking for "Space rifle, MK 1, with mind reading interface" with no intent to actually replace the M4.

[Dan 177]

Darn, no more "Evil BLACK Rifles"

 

Otherwise, it does seem set up to fail.

 

 

204.

Can ANY of the IC's external small components be black in color (i.e. levers, trigger, rails, etc..)?

RESPONSE: All external parts and/or exterior surfaces must be non-black.

[Cylinder Head 22]

Yep, this is one big dog and pony show. The accuracy requirements are just completely nebulous.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

M4 is a good rifle and it works. No need to change it

[Cylinder Head 22]

M4 is a good rifle and it works. No need to change it

 

I'd change the barrel profile to one that's a little more logical (getting thicker at the end?? really??) and standardize the KAC barrel extension and bolt. Otherwise I agree the platform is rock solid until we start using laser guns.

[Dan 177]

I'd change the barrel profile to one that's a little more logical (getting thicker at the end?? really??) and standardize the KAC barrel extension and bolt. Otherwise I agree the platform is rock solid until we start using laser guns.

 

I also was wondering the same thing regarding the M4 contour being skinny under the handguard, and thicker at the muzzle end, here's what I found.

 

 

- added strength for drive by bayonetting.. so the end doesn't bend

- prevent a knock or drop from bending the end

- add weight up front to assist in taming sustained fire barrel rise

- standardize on gasblock size

[Vlad G 345]

- added strength for drive by bayonetting.. so the end doesn't bend

 

Made sense when we had 20" barrels. I'm not sure how much people bayonet with 14.5" ones.

 

- prevent a knock or drop from bending the end

 

I can't imagine how you would do this. Its hard steel not soft pot metal.

 

- add weight up front to assist in taming sustained fire barrel rise

 

Compensator works a lot better

 

- standardize on gasblock size

 

Sure, but then you can machine the barrel thin again ahead of the gas block.

 

I'm not saying these might not have been good ideas at some point, just not sure they make a lot of sense now.

[Dan 177]

Made sense when we had 20" barrels. I'm not sure how much people bayonet with 14.5" ones.

Apparently still a requirment for the govt...

 

 

 

I can't imagine how you would do this. Its hard steel not soft pot metal.

There is talk that soldiers use the tip as a prybar...

 

 

 

 

Compensator works a lot better

Military uses flash suppressors that to my knowledge do not act as compensators. I think a dual role one would be better also

 

 

 

Sure, but then you can machine the barrel thin again ahead of the gas block.

Suppose so

 

I'm not saying these might not have been good ideas at some point, just not sure they make a lot of sense now.

Can't argue with you. personally I like it this way as, where it emerges from my rail system, it gives the illusion that it is beefy all the way through, makes it look tougher than a pencil bbl.

[Cylinder Head 22]

Somebody take a picture, we're having a mature discussion without someone getting butthurt.

[Vlad G 345]

Somebody take a picture, we're having a mature discussion without someone getting butthurt.

 

Someone getting butthurt in 3 .. 2 .. 1..

 

Additionally there is this gem in that document I linked:

 

101.

What is the desired dB reduction when firing suppressed vs. unsuppressed; or, what is the

desired dB limit while firing suppressed?

RESPONSE: The 140db is the objective for unsuppressed.

 

140db Unsuppressed?? Thats more then a .22 and less then any other cartridge, including slow pistol rounds. They can't be serious.

[Cylinder Head 22]

Retard bean counters wrote that RFP, I'm telling you. The brass are so far removed from the battlefield, the procurement process so rigged, I'm amazed our boys aren't issued Red Ryders.

 

Now I'm butthurt.

[Vlad G 345]

I actually suspect this was written because they are tiered of hearing from Congress and press that the M4 sucks. Someone went and said to themselves "Fine, shut up, we'll just ask for the ideal damn gun, no one will have one, so then we can tell the retarded junior senator from Blowmetana to shut his pie hole".

[Dan 177]

I say we here at NJGF should start designing this M-UGNJ rifle. Stands for Military - Unicorn Gun New Jersey. Being it will shoot energized plasma particle beams, we can even keep it NJ AWB compliant.