Saber Defense to supply US military with M16s

[melensdad]

Bushmaster broke the Colt stranglehold with a small contract to sell M16s to the military and shipped some to Iraq a short while ago. Now it appears that Saber Defense is getting a turn to supply some M16s in various configurations to our troops.

M4s and A4s will be going to the Marines, A3s to the Navy.

https://aais.ria.army.mil/aais/award_web_08/W52H0908D02930001/000000.pdf

 

[Lars]

I'm not a huge Colt fan. Similar to Microsoft they have some questionable business practices in my opinion.

It's interesting to see someone other than Colt and FN sending rifles into the field. I wasn't aware of a shortage of rifles from the other two. Maybe Bushmaster builds them for enough less to make a difference. Hopefully quality isn't equally less "expensive"

 

[melensdad]

In the reports that I see there is no problem with the M16 platform's performance in the field. The guns seem reliable and the troops generally like the guns and believe them to be vastly superior to the AK. That said, they seem to wish the guns utilized a more powerful round and they seem to have some problems with less than reliable magazines. The magazine issue also seems to plague the Baretta M9 service pistols that are deployed. The guns themselves are reliable but the magazines may not feed and some reports show that the magazines are downloaded with only 10 rounds.

 

[kedie]

I never cared much for the M16A2 when I was in the Army, I loved my M4 though. I would have jumped at the chance to carry an M14, but I was in before all the designated marksman stuff. The only problem I had with the M4 was caused by a faulty round, not the weapon, and was easily remedied by immediate action. I would like to see the military go to the 6.8mm instead of the 5.56mm.

 

[melensdad]

I would like to see the military go to the 6.8mm instead of the 5.56mm.

Why not the 6.5 Grendel instead of the 6.8 SPC? Or even the 7.62x39 round instead of the 6.8 SPC. Seems to me both will function in the AR15/M16 platform and both are superior to the 6.8 SPC. The 6.5 Grendel nearly duplicates the 7.62 NATO at mid to long range, blows away the 5.56 at short range and the Russian's 7.62x39 is already plentiful and proven.

 

[kedie]

Why not the 6.5 Grendel instead of the 6.8 SPC? Or even the 7.62x39 round instead of the 6.8 SPC. Seems to me both will function in the AR15/M16 platform and both are superior to the 6.8 SPC. The 6.5 Grendel nearly duplicates the 7.62 NATO at mid to long range, blows away the 5.56 at short range and the Russian's 7.62x39 is already plentiful and proven.

No real reason other than I am more familliar with the 6.8 SPC, and that it was developed by the guys at 5th SFG and the USAMU. I'd be happy with any round that gave our GI's more power.

 

[shooter521]

Bushmaster broke the Colt stranglehold with a small contract to sell M16s to the military

FN "broke the Colt stranglehold" a long time ago and has been providing M-16A2s and A4s to the US military. Bushmaster was originally awarded this Navy contract, but it was terminated in January before production began (allegedly because of a disagreement over whether BM qualifies as a "small business").

M4s and A4s will be going to the Marines, A3s to the Navy.

The Sabre Defence contract is for M-16A3s and A4s. No mention of M4s, which makes sense, as Colt still has a monopoly on the M4 Technical Data Package for another month or so. After that, it will be transferred to the DoD, and I fully expect future M4 orders to be bid out.

I must say that the .gov is getting a helluva deal on those Sabres at $884.00 apiece. A refreshing change from the days of the $600 toilet seat.

 

[rkba_net]

Why not the 6.5 Grendel instead of the 6.8 SPC? Or even the 7.62x39 round instead of the 6.8 SPC. Seems to me both will function in the AR15/M16 platform and both are superior to the 6.8 SPC. The 6.5 Grendel nearly duplicates the 7.62 NATO at mid to long range, blows away the 5.56 at short range and the Russian's 7.62x39 is already plentiful and proven.

6.5 Grendel because of case length (ie short) is difficult at BEST to get running in a belt... which would be required for any conversion of the SAW... it would be moronic to have to stock 5.66 / 6.5 and 7.62 ammo... that being said any improvement in ammo is (re 6.5 or 6.8) IMHO not enough to justify switching calibers... I be you will see the current 5.56 ammo upgraded with the 77gr bullets that some of the SO guys use...

 

[Disposable Heart]

In the reports that I see there is no problem with the M16 platform's performance in the field. The guns seem reliable and the troops generally like the guns and believe them to be vastly superior to the AK. That said, they seem to wish the guns utilized a more powerful round and they seem to have some problems with less than reliable magazines. The magazine issue also seems to plague the Baretta M9 service pistols that are deployed. The guns themselves are reliable but the magazines may not feed and some reports show that the magazines are downloaded with only 10 rounds.

Unfortunately, anything fielded by any military will wear out dramatically faster. Give the average grunt a M9, the thing most likely has been in circulation since the 90s, not taken care of 100% and beat to crap. Same with the Vietnam era 1911s. Many of those were WW2 guns that werent taken care of as well. The magazines are ancient in comparison to the beating we would give them. Generally, if the mag holds a round without the feedlips letting it go, it passes But still, I would rather have a beat up gun then a gun worn by too much cleaning (CETME)

Ineffective round? I would say more like ineffective training. The .223 ball round is effective as a military cartridge but no one is teaching shot placement. Look at Army qualifications: We just had a Naval academy class come out to the range. After talking to their representative, I found that their weapons familiarization and training is nothing more than picking up the gun, firing a few rounds, then thats it. You pass or you dont. The Army isnt much better. Fire a few rounds, clean the gun, then that is it. They dont learn about zippering or aiming at areas where the round will at least form a temp cavity against the back bone, let alone smash into it.

People will him and haw over the round's effectiveness in Vietnam. Keep in mind, they were spraying down the jungle, containing heavy brush and jungle so thick, it would make a .45-70 brush gun shudder (the stories my father told me scared the crap out of me regarding just the jungle!). Once again, ineffective training (however, I believe no training given to any human could have prepared anyone for the situation in Vietnam)

There are many that would love to see .308 come back in. Then there would be people complaining about the 7.62 NATO being too "big" for most of the folks in the Army now (note training regimine as aforementioned). You can get a new shooter a .45 but that extra power doesnt mean anything if they cant hit a target. Keep in mind, many hate the 9mm round, but I would bet that there are NATO powers that hate the 5.56mm round. They forced the pistol round, we forced the rifle round. There are people that drink the cool-aid in regards to the M16 and .223, but also there is a old tyme lemonade cool-aid flavor for the .308 crowd too (at least in my mind)

On the note of military arms, I have two questions:
1. The original concept of the 9x19 NATO round, didnt the US Air Force want a truncated cone/flat point 124 gr. bullet instead of RN as this may do more damage? I think it was turned down due to reliability in SMGs.
2. I heard there is only one set of tools for the M16 magazines, but they travel from contractor to contractor. Supposedly it is such a lucrative deal that it raises the contractor out of their small business status in a matter of years, even months! Is this true? We have come close to losing small business status (thank god for veteran owned status) with a few government contracts we get at work.

 

[melensdad]

... it would be moronic to have to stock 5.66 / 6.5 and 7.62 ammo...

Bear in mind I never advocated switching calibers or carrying multiple calibers, I simply asked, in regards to a different post that suggested the military might want to switch to the 6.8 SPC, why the 6.8 SPC when there are two other rounds that function perfectly in the AR/M16 platform that have better terminal ballistics.

The terminal ballistics on the 6.8 SPC simply are not much to write home about, the bullets are short and fat and low in ballistic coefficient so they run out of steam at moderate ranges. The 7.62x39 is proven to be more effective at short and medium ranges out of an accurate gun. The 6.5 Grendel has similar ballistic effect as the 6.8 SPC at short ranges but is vastly superior at mid-to-long ranges. In fact at long-to-very-long ranges it exceeds the 7.62 NATO round. Realize that our existing stocks of AR/M16 guns can be changed over to any of these cartridges by swapping the bolt and the barrel (and perhaps the magazine) leaving the majority of the rifle intact.

Not trying to start an ammo debate, but if you think about it, the 6.5 Grendel could replace BOTH the 5.56NATO and the 7.62NATO rounds and provide our troops with greater terminal ballistics in urban battles as well as equal/better terminal ballistics for modest range sniper use.

-OR-​

the 7.62x39 used in the AK guns could replace the 5.56NATO round and provide greater terminal ballistics at the short ranges our guys & gals seem to encounter in urban battles.

 

[epsylum]

Why not the 6.5 Grendel instead of the 6.8 SPC? Or even the 7.62x39 round instead of the 6.8 SPC. Seems to me both will function in the AR15/M16 platform and both are superior to the 6.8 SPC.

I have heard nothing but stories of how unreliable any AR chambered in 7.62x39 is. It has something to do with the mags and the magwell as 7.62x39 requires much more curve to the mag than 5.56 does and the gun just wasn't designed for that.

I too would like to see 6.5 Grendel gain acceptence in the military as that round looks sweet balistically, but I have heard as has already been pointed out that it does not work well with ammo belts and that would be a must for any 5.56 replacement. If they can make that work, I can see it maybe phasing out 7.62 NATO as well though and thereby making ammo logistics even easier.