S-2

"...they couldn't manage to build the Rheinmetall gun to same degree of precision for the same amount of money as the Germans, to attempt do so would cost way too much according to US studies. So the US simplified the design to use fewer & less complex parts, the M256 was the result."

Goodness. So our options were to produce a barrel by the thousands of units at the Rheinmetall specified standards or accept a less precise barrel. Spitzer, you've equated a more functional design achieving near optimal performance with less parts for a lower unit cost with imprecision.

May America perpetuate imprecision. The best validations of such imprecise functionality lie as battered and burned-out tank hulks in tank graveyards scattered throughout Kuwait and Iraq.

Your approach was a fascinating exercise in logic which ultimately has little to do with nationality. However, I won't deny that I've a special curiousity as an American in your conclusions as expressed here.

No doubt that we'll someday need an new rifle design. Until then, I remain unconvinced that the M16/M4 aren't perfectly capable to our current tasks.

__________________
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

ofogs

The M4/M16 series is perfectly capable of the job at hand. As long as you properly maintain it, it works very well. Problems with maintenance stem from people who are improperly taught how to maintain the weapons. A big problem I've seen are people who use too much CLP (Cleaner Lubricant and Protectant). When the initial study said the weapons were "heavily lubricated" this raised an eyebrow with me. When you go to a range, you can tell who soaked their weapon in CLP beforehand because the first few rounds burn a lot of it off and there's smoke coming out from the upper as they fire. Great way to add carbon into the bolt/chamber area. The lesson may be CLP isn't all that great and there may be a need to look at alternative lubricants and cleaners. It's the only substance I've ever seen that claims to perform all three actions at the same time. It doesn't touch my personally owned M4/AR-15 variant.

To me, the points of failure in the design stem less from the direct gas system than from either feeding (magazine issues) or extraction. Neither of these are fatal flaws to the design and can easily be improved upon.

I would think that in order for the US Army to decide to replace the M4, there would need to be something available that offers a revolutionary change (caseless ammo, lasers etc) or a catalyst for change in the form of immense public failures of the M4/M16 series of weapons. Otherwise, it would be tough to justify a change.

All that being said, I was impressed with the little I saw of the XM8 and I prefer the idea of a piston driven upper. Don't see it happening, though.

Spitzer

Listen I'm not saying that the M256 isn't precisely built, it is, however the design had to be altered in order for the US industry being capable of producing it. The design incorperated too many small & complex precision made parts, however the US found a way around this. And why do you want to twist my words as to being about the precision of the barrel ?? Making the barrel to precise specs isn't hard, and there's no difference between the American & German built ones here.

You can read a little about it here: Main Battle Tank - M1, M1A1, and M1A2 Abrams


As for the US needing a new rifle, well it is my opinion that they do, many countries have moved on to newer designs, I think its time for the US as-well. The XM8 was a good choice, unfortunately it has been scrapped.

The soldiers need a rifle they can take out into a dusty battlefield for months and still function with minimal jams.

Albany Rifles

The third model, the M1A1, or M1 with Block 1 Product Improvement, started in August 1985. In addition to the improvements fitted to the IPM1 tank, the M1A1's major asset was to be the German Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore cannon. US studies on the gun concluded it was overly complex and expensive by American engineering standards, so a version using fewer parts was developed, and designated the 120mm M256 gun. Along with the new gun came a number of associated changes to the fire control system.

__________________
"Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves." TSGT Oddball, Tank Commander

Albany Rifles

From the website:

The third model, the M1A1, or M1 with Block 1 Product Improvement, started in August 1985. In addition to the improvements fitted to the IPM1 tank, the M1A1's major asset was to be the German Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore cannon. US studies on the gun concluded it was overly complex and expensive by American engineering standards, so a version using fewer parts was developed, and designated the 120mm M256 gun. Along with the new gun came a number of associated changes to the fire control system.

Your comment

however the design had to be altered in order for the US industry being capable of producing it.

That is not what the article said and you are drawing the wrong conclusion.

For starters, Watervliet Arsenal in New York was more than capable of producing the exact weapon to the exact same standards as what Rheinmetal could do. The probelm would be the cost of retooling the production line from the M68A1 to the exact specs of the Rheinmetal design. So a cheaper and more efficeint way was found to use existing equipment as much as possible when manufacturing of the M256 started at Watervliet. In order to same money the design was modified. It had nothing to do with ability. Additioanlly, most of the changes had to do with how the weapon fit into the gun mantle sicne the gun mantle of the M1A1 was significantly different than the Leo 2. Oh, and some of the parts were changed from Metric to to English since that is what US weapons use.

Today Watervliet is using only 18% of capacity and most of its issues have to do with the labor force...which has migrated out of upstate New York as the jobs have moved elsewhere.

Rethinking Governance of the Army's ... - Google Book Search

Watervliet also had the adeed problem of dealing with old facilities. US Cannons have been made there since 1813. Rheinmetal got to start over again thanks to the plant redesign opportunities afforded them thanks to the RAF & USAAF.

As for the M16/M4 "debate"

You have based your judgements on hearsay and old data. You have never fored the weapon in combat as I understand it.

OFOGS and several others have.

I believe I will go with their assesment.

cato

XM8 a good choice? Que? Perhaps if the determinant qualification was the ability to melt under sustained fire. There is MUCH open source material about the XM8's manifold failures available on duh innanet. Look at the result of the troop trials (with the Ranger Rgt., if I'm not mistaken). OFOGS is right (and I hope safe along with his precious charges) that there will be no change in personal weapon or caliber until something qualitatively superior comes along. As to the claim of the M256s putative inferiority, I'd say it belongs among such horse apples as "5.56 was designed to wound" urban legend. BS and WWW hearsay.

Cato

S-2

Lovely seeing you guys drop by. Nice replies. Ofogs' too.

I had felt a disturbance in the force...but it seems gone. S-2's world is again in harmony w/itself. My disturbed wah secured by trusted and expert testimonial. Ahhhh....

It's all good.

Officer of Engineers

It's been over 5 years in combat and we have NOT seen US bellycrawlers throwing away their weapons for anything better. Your very own stipulation has been met with flying colours. Malfunctions are an extreme minimum and most of those are attributed a lack of weapons discipline. The EVIDENCE is against you ... all the way.

__________________
Chimo

leib10

Although I've heard of XM8/G36 receivers expanding under sustained fire, I've never heard of them actually melting, at least not under reasonable combat conditions.

And truth on there never being a replacement for the M16/M4 until something drastically improved comes out. It simply isn't economically and logistically feasible to replace them with something that is itself going to be eclipsed a year from its adoption.

__________________
"The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

braindead

Eeee... dumb question perhaps , but could it be just a misunderstanding in relation to imperial/metric systems ?

__________________
....

ShawnG

My opinion on the matter exactly. I've never had a problem with the rifles I've carried through Afghanistan and Iraq. The key is proper maintenance on both the weapon AND the magazines. And then the folks who watch too many war movies and bang the mags off their ACH before loading... breaking a weld or two that holds the mag together... After firing the G-36 during a joint traning excercise in Afghanistan with the Germans, I am a fan of the plastic magazines they employ, and the rifle as a whole.

-ATW!

__________________
"Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime." -Adlai E. Stevenson

gunnut

Only if it's our Mars probe you're talking about.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

gunnut

Why do we need a new issue rifle? At the quantity we order, nothing short of a quantum leap in effectiveness is worth our time to switch.

Many rifles are marginally better than M-16/M-4, but none offer enough of an improvement to warrant a wholesale switch.

It's not just the cost of the weapons themselves. We have to change our training, spare parts stockpile, set up a new logistic network to support the transition, and you have to train the guys in the field on a whole new system and discipline. For every dollar the weapon itself costs, it probably takes $5 behind to scene to support the switch.

All of these hassle for what? Maybe a few percentages of extra reliability? And that's only if the weapon is lightly maintained. The effectiveness of the round is the same. The effective range of the weapon is the same. Not really worth the cost.

Spitzer

I don't see how my conclusion was wrong Albany rifles. It clearly says that "US studies on the gun concluded it was overly complex and expensive by American engineering standards"

Complex by engineering standards means that problems are highly likely going to arise in producing the product to the same specs as the original, which IS expensive. However the bottom line is that the Rheinmetall L/44 & M256 are completely identical in terms of performance on all aspects, precision, firepower etc etc..

As for the XM8's action melding; Well that's a definite first news for me, any references to when this supposedly happened ?

ShawnG, I agree the G-36 is a marvelous rifle. Our C7A2's are nice rifles as-well, definitely nicer than the std. M-16, the full auto capability & scope being very much appreciated by us.

S-2

I read A.R.'s offered comments to suggest that the Rheinmetall 120mm gun was needlessly over-engineered for an indiscernable difference in performance. As such, it didn't justify the costs of production as developed by Rheinmetall nearly like the re-designed M256.

Value-addition by subtraction.