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

[The Wierd It]

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

[SPEMack618]

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.

[The Wierd It]

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

[SPEMack618]

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.

[Excalibur]

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

[SPEMack618]

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.

[Spartan198]

Originally Posted by The Wierd It

FN's not going to win the IC competition.

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.

[SPEMack618]

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.

[Spartan198]

^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.

[commando552]

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.