Paul over at Ares has an article on the Army's upcoming competition to upgrade its M4 carbine.
The US Army has a conundrum. Either it keeps the current M4, upgrades it or replaces it all together. Those would seem to be the choices.
But this isn't really an issue. If the US Army and Marines want a compact RIFLE...then look no farther than the TAVOR.
I blogged about this recurring issue in 2009 (read it here). The Tavor has an 18 inch barrel, keeping the 5.56mm bullets hitting power at long range. Has integrated electronic sights. Has attachment points for lasers etc...all in a package no bigger than the M4.
Win-win.
I don't really see the point in replacing the M4. Continuing upgrades to it make any benefits from a change marginal and not terribly cost-effective.
ReplyDeleteEven going to a piston upper has its own issues. (the biggest being weight and cost)
Spend the money on improved optics, smaller thermals, improved 5.56mm rounds, and other attachments.
oh i totally agree, but whats disturbing is the way we're moving backwards and you touched on it.
ReplyDeleteweight.
the whole thing about even thinking about going to the M4 was weight. with everything being added to these weapons they're as heavy as the M-16A4 without the stopping power and are therefore much less effective.
better ammo, optics etc...(like you said) is the way to go...
my point was though, if we're going to spend good money on massive upgrades on the M4 then we could save that money by buying new TAVORs and have the upgrades out the box.
As I understand it, the US Army never liked bullpups for two main reasons. First, you can't attach grenade launchers or other underlung items (shotguns etc.) comfortably.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, it's the whole re-load issue, which is a bit awkward if not dangerous as you have to turn your head and rifle away from your target.
Marcase, i'd have to say false on both those issues. the Australians do immediate action drills with their Steyr Augs without any problems...it takes a bit of practice but they seem quite proficient...same goes for the grenade launcher attachments. i've seen them on Steyr Augs too.
ReplyDeleteas for the rest of the trash that's hung off these weapons...to each his own but i'm thinking we're heading toward too much.
Marcase,
ReplyDeleteI have to take exception to both your points on bullpups. As an SA80 user i've seen it fitted with UGLs and foregrips underslung, i've also never had a reloading problem or problem with immediate action drills. Anyone who does has been improperly trained frankly.
Bullpups also offer other benefits, like the range to barrel length ratio mentioned for TAVOR.
Is it ambi? If not the brass will smack lefties right in the face with a bullpup wouldn't it?
ReplyDeleteWell, I said, as I understand it, the US Army didn't liked the bullpup - or at least didn't awhile back. Read some articles and spoke to people a while back and they raised those issues, that was during the run-up of the previous rifle project which included the XM-8 etc.
ReplyDeleteI know the Australians use an M203 under their Steyrs (though that experimental Firestorm "OICW-Light" was just plain awesome) and so do the French with their FAMAS, so yes, it *can* be done - just not comfortable as it makes it really barrel-heavy. Or so I was told.
As I've never handled a bullpup myself, I have to go with what people write/say. Nice to hear that it isn't such an issue though, so thanks for that guys!
(and yup; Tavor is fully ambidextrous)
The Tavor is fully ambidextrous (select switch, mag release, and eject port) and is used operationally with the M203.
ReplyDeleteIndian Para group using Tavor w/M203
Marcase,
ReplyDeleteI've not used a bullpup with an underslung launcher myself, but based on the way I hold a rifle, I think i'd feel more in control of a bullpup with UGL compared to a standard rifle with UGL. Your arms are proportionally further forward on the weapon supporting the weight of it with a bullpup so it'd be easier to manage that extra front end weight (my experience only, and I haven't put that to the test - i'll try at the first opportunity).
I have to say though that I do prefer some features on the M4 (and G36 - used both for the first time recently, G36 is possibly my favourite assault rifle around) compared to the SA80, magazine release for one, but I think thats mainly due to the age of the SA80, other bullpups have more modern features.
bullpup magazine swaps are not too bad once you get used to it, and the configuration actually gives you a slightly smaller profile exposed over or around cover.
ReplyDeleteThat said, the M4 is still where it is at, with the ergonomics and accuracy, the best at making hits with fatigued operators. I'd only institute evolutionary improvements and larger evals of gas piston uppers.
I would however also start making modern AR-10s in 7.62N available in both carbine and DMR configurations.
i would think that the M110 or whatever the army is calling is semi-automatic sniper rifle the modern AR-10 that you're talking about.
ReplyDeletei still don't like the idea of using a carbine in place of a rifle and a 14 inch barrel ain't rifle length.