Theoretical: The SOCOM M4A1 post-adoption of the FN AC
 

As most of you here probably know, a modified version of the SCAR-L termed the AC, or Advanced Carbine, was entered into the Army's Individual Carbine competition.

http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploa...2/fn_fnac1.png

And as we all know, SOCOM previously decided against ordering the SCAR-L since it doesn't do anything that a well maintained M4A1 won't. But I got to thinking, if the FN AC were actually adopted as the new standard US Army carbine, what would this mean for the M4s in SOCOM's inventory? Would they maintain it as their standard 5.56mm carbine (while the M4 becomes a second-tier weapon in the regular forces) or would there be a backtrack in SCAR-L acquisition by SOCOM? I can't see them accepting the FN AC since the charging handle was modified to be non-reciprocating, removal of a key feature that SOCOM specifically wanted. Or would they? Or would they take the opportunity to standardize the HK416 as organization-wide issue?

I realize SOCOM and FN are working on a 5.56mm caliber conversion for the SCAR-H, but let's say for the purpose of this discussion that it hits a dead end/gets canned/we go to war with Belgium over who makes a better waffle and FN decides to no longer supply us with guns/whatever, what happens?

Just for the record, I'm not expecting anything except maybe a piston-driven M4 out of the IC competition.

FN's not going to win the IC competition. The DoD's taking too many Colt backhanders for that. *hides the tinfoil hat*

I doubt the AC produces anything simply because the cost invovled in procuring a new weapon, regardless of being 5.56mm and taking STANAG mags, will far outweigh any supposed benefits of a new weapon system.

Sequestration and all that, you see.

Although from the looks of things FN's got it made anyway since the DoD's paying them $84 million for new M4A1s.

Yeah, Colt lost the M-16 contract awhile back and then lost the sole contract for the M-4A1.

In a way though, this makes me happy, since ever since then Colt has been concentrating a lot more on the civillian market.

Odds are, the Army is not going to adopt a new rifle because of the costs it would take it swap out the entire Army's inventory of M4s

And while they're are certainly improvements that could be made to the M-4, they're aren't big enough to justify an entirely new weapon system.

Maybe so, maybe not, we'll have to wait and see. That's not the point, though. If the AC were to win the IC competition, I can't help but wonder what the ramifications on SOCOM acquisition of 5.56mm carbines will be. If it were to come to pass, SOCOM's "standard" 5.56mm carbine would effectively be looked at as a second-tier weapon. Hell, some people already consider the M4 a second tier weapon and many don't even consider it a combat-worthy weapon at all.

It always make me chuckle when internet commandoes rail about how ineffective the M-4A1 is.

If it was really that bad, would SOCOM and other assorted world wild Spec Ops guys really use it?

I mean these are the people that actually get the money to get the very best thing, they aren't going to carry anything that isn't the best.

Oh, and I'm not implying that you are an internet commando, Spartan.

^Don't worry, I know weren't. I am just a civvie, though, so I'm going to leave such analysis up to the guys who use the weapon. But the fact that armed forces all over the world are running, and in some cases have been for years on end, DI guns like the M4 without mass failure, should speak for itself IMO. I don't need to have carried the weapon into combat to know that much.

Not really related but Spartan referring to it as a DI gun made me wonder, does anyone know what the technical name for the gas system in an AR-10/15 is? It isn't a DI as most people call it, that is where the gas just blows on the bolt carrier to push it back, whereas the Stoner system routes the gas tube into the bolt carrier which effectively becomes a piston pushing the bolt carrier backwards until the bolt unlocks and cycles the action.

Anyway, whatever the system is actually called, I agree that there is nothing wrong with picking that as a design. It has disadvantages, but it also has advantages. In my opinion it is much more likely that the US will carry on with the M4 PIP program than going for a totally new carbine.

I've only ever heard it referred to as direct impingement gas. If there's another name for it, I've no idea what it is.

In OSUT, the M-16A2s we trained with were simply referred to as "gas operated".

If I were Chief of Staff for the day, I wouldn't concentrate so much on a new carbine, but on a more effective round to use in it.

I have read Stoner's original patent application a while ago, and he made a point of saying that it wasn't a direct impingement design. I have heard a rather long winded name for it at some point that was something to do with gas expansion and the piston being in line with the bore, but can't seem to find it now.

"Gas operated" is broad terminology, though. An M16, an AK, and a Gewehr 41 are all technically gas-operated in spite of their different operating principles.

Even then, 5.56mm isn't exactly some pathetic whelp of a round that can barely even punch a hole through a Middle Eastern insurgent. The round's been used for ages and on many different targets by people in many countries for many years; the complaints have only recently started to come out in force. The problem doesn't seem to be with the 5.56x45mm cartridge itself, but rather the changes made when switching to the M16A2 standard.

Then again, I personally find the ban on expanding bullets in warfare to be inherently stupid. Police and hunters use it to ensure a quicker stopping and/or death of the target, so it would probably be MORE humane to use it against other people that you're trying to kill. It seems less about being "humane" and more about trying to make wounds look cleaner and help sanitize the concept of war.

Why did you think that same convention also banned serrated knives

Does anyone even abide by that one? I know both the M9 and OKC-3S bayonets used by the Army and Marines have partial serrations. The M11 EOD knife, which uses the same blade design as the M9, obviously would have those serrations, too.

AK bayonets have a saw blade as well. I don't know if that was ever an actual rule, more of a courtesy.

I think the origin of this is the saw backed bayonets carried by German pioneers in WW1. Apparently there were stories of them causing such ghastly wounds that if a soldier was captured with one he was tortured and executed, so the German Army stopped issuing them. The Hague convention only covers weapons which are "calculated to cause unnecessary suffering", and this is generally not the intent with a serrated are sawback knife. The serrations are generally there for utility purposes due to bayonets now being more of a tool and are not designed to cause suffering, so they are allowed.

So hollow points were specifically banned by Declaration II of the Hague Convention of 1899:

Interestingly, "the use of projectiles the object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases" was also banned at the same convention. (Declaration III.) This obviously didn't stick, but it could be the reason why the Germans initially only released chemical weapons from gas cylinders. It wasn't until later that both sides started filling projectiles with the stuff.

Section II, Chapter I, Article 23 of "Laws and Customs of War on Land" prohibits using "arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury"

I genuinely understand the purpose of the Hague and Geneve conventions, in addition to the theory behind ball ammo. And I think it applies neatly to a total war scenario against a similar nation. (Think Allies against Germany)

However, when the enemy comes from an entirely different culture, there is no strategic industry for Bomber Commander and the 8th Air Force to plaster into oblivion, and oh yeah, the bad guys leave thier wounded behind for us to deal with, the ban on hollow points seems a bit...antiquated.

Especially with the kinds of ammo the military is allowed to use. We can't use hollow point but HE grenades fired from the Mk 19s? the kinds of missiles and bombs we throw at our enemies today?

Incendiary weapons, especially. You'd think they'd have put a ban on slowly roasting people to death, but nope!

I always thought it was funny that we were mandated to have one less lethal option per truck/section.

Generally that was a Mossberg M590A1 or having appropiate crowd control grenades for the -203A1.

That being said, the Mossberg was always loaded with 00 Buck, and was favored by my platoon sergeant when we were doing house searched.

Breeching round, bye-bye door, rack in a load of buck, and bam he's clearing rooms like he was taking down a meth lab back home.