The Army's new Rifle and Cartridge

[Allen]

Will the new cartridge chamber in the M4 ?
If it does I can see blow ups looming

The 300 Blackout can. Another cartridge that never should have been.

[Art]

I qualified with the M14 in the Army and carried it a lot in Korea, and once again I'm going to be the fly in the buttermilk.

I found the M14 to be an accurate rifle. I enjoyed shooting it. It is harder to disassemble than an M16 or an AK. I also found it liable to failure (locking up like a bank vault) if it got very wet at all. Exception to you "Gyrines" who were issued Lubriplate. Remember, it's still basically a Garand action. We in the Army never were issued gun grease and I wasn't the only one who had this "lock up" problem and I had it more than once. I was meticulous about keeping my weapon clean but the only lubricant we were issued was whatever light machine oil was classed as "gun oil" at the moment.

The current combat load out is excessive, sometimes over 50 pounds, and I'm interested in seeing how the troops are going to react to this weapon in light of its weight and the weight of its ammunition. Combat load will be 140 rounds with the new weapon (that should hold down the temptation hit the "go fast switch" because of the weight of the ammo; the M4 combat load is 210 rounds with the same number of magazines. With the M14 I carried 101 rounds. Remember, soldiers today consider the M16 excessively heavy, unwieldy getting in and out of vehicles and too long for urban combat....and that's the M16!!

There is that tendency to think of the rifle one used in the Military as the best "thunderstick" ever. I just can't do that with the M14.

My devalued $.05

[Former Cav]

they should have made the M16 with a bolt that had 2 BIG locking lugs (like on the M14 Bolt). 3 at the most. Of course, the "spline" in the chamber would be the same but with clearance for dirt. 6 mm bullets to 6.5 mm with about a 2800 FPS and the bullets weighing about 107 in the 6mm and 142 max in the 6.5. Then you would have had a rifle that would PUT THE ENEMY down and out of the fight after the first good hit. You hit them with that squirrel gun we had, and you would PISS them off and they would be shooting at you with there AK's for a 1/2 hour till they finally bled out.
The M14 should have had a fiberglass stock due to the JUNGLE climate. Gun grease...issued!! (as mentioned above by Art).
IMHO

[Mark in Ottawa]

One major problem that nobody has mentioned is compatibility with the ammunition used by other NATO countries. There is likely to be a lot of pushback over changing calibers since if such a change were to be applied throughout NATO, the costs would be very high. Otherwise there would be logistics issues

[Art]

One major problem that nobody has mentioned is compatibility with the ammunition used by other NATO countries. There is likely to be a lot of pushback over changing calibers since if such a change were to be applied throughout NATO, the costs would be very high. Otherwise there would be logistics issues

It isn't just a compatibility with NATO. The Marines have just adopted a new weapons system in 5.56mm. The Air Force will still use 5.56mm and all Army support troops will use 5.56mm. The new weapon will be for Army front line troops (Infantry, Spec. Ops., Combat MPs, and Combat Engineers) only. All other Army troops will still have the M4.

You are right. There will be logistical issues.

[RH Scott]

My $$ is on this never lifting off the ground other than contracts being awarded. GWOT is over and military contractors are looking for contracts.
Too big, too expensive, too heavy, too much PSI and heat and most of all no training program to use the proposed new capability.
I will also go against the grain on the M14. It was obsolete the day it was proposed and only lingers on because they are paid for and we have not cut them up. It may have had its place in the Cold War but time has passed it by long ago.