idea for a new infantry rifle- hear me out

rhs77430 · February 21, 2012, 08:14 PM

so i've been thinking, the us army has been looking for a new piston-driven carbine, to replace or upgrade the current m4 carbine. Popular candidates include the SCAR the XCR, the ACR, the H&K, but some very viable candidates have been overlooked. I want you to consider something out of left field.

I think this is not taken seriously enough. if kel-tec beefed up that barrel, made the receiver out of steel, got rid of the folding part, just had the receiver one piece, and put more metal parts (trigger), but kept same design, bolt, etc, added a 3 round burst capability, you've got yourself a goddamn good rifle. thoughts?

Coyote_Buster700 · February 21, 2012, 08:19 PM

So basically... you Want Kel tec to produce an hk416...

What could that hodgepodge possibly do that the m4 cant already?... NTM that when you take away the fold up capability of the Kel tek, you take away the reason to buy the su16... its a fold up carbine. To do anything else with it would be... for lack of a better word, Retarded.

davery25 · February 21, 2012, 08:28 PM

as far as i know there are no reliability issues with the m4, the issue is reports that its barrel is too short to make use of the 223 round and has max effective range of 50 metre. I dont know if i believe that but thats what i've read anyway.

Would the rifle above really do any better?

rhs77430 · February 21, 2012, 08:33 PM

see your point coyote, so make the receiver steel, but keep the foldability. is that a word?

but yeah esp if made with the 16" barrel, it would have a farther effective range than a 14 1/2 inch m4 barrel. also, you could have only a select few manufactured with the m203 cuts to mount it, most would have a thick, heavy barrel.

rhs77430 · February 21, 2012, 08:35 PM

and i'm not saying it would have anything the competition doesnt, i'm just saying it could compete

KyJim · February 21, 2012, 08:43 PM

I wouldn't feel comfortable with arming the military with a rifle made by a company that can't keep their website malware free.

kraigwy · February 21, 2012, 08:52 PM

I have a better ideal.

The M16a1 worked great, it was light, it was reliable and accurate.

It's down fall was:

1: The 1:12 twist limited it to light bullets.
2: The sights were not readily adjustable for elevation without using the front sight.

Something that is "NOT" needed, is the piston.

So Go back to the M16a1, add the same weight barrel in 1:7 and the 'A2's rear sight.

Keep the weight the same as the orginal M16A1.

That, in the opinion of one who used the M16 in Combat, would be the perfect battle rifle.

A rifle with added distance, that light weight, and worked in every enviorment our military would find itself in, from the Jungle, desert, and arctic.

PS: Dump that heavy a$$ bayonet and go back to the M-7, it will do anything that needs done plus you can dig a pretty deep hole, pretty dern fast with a lot less weight.

Achilles11B · February 21, 2012, 08:58 PM

As an OIF vet, whose first deployment saw his unit carrying the 'A4s, clearing rooms with 20" muskets gets ridiculous. Riding in Humvees and BFV's with said muskets clanging around also gets ridiculous. Added range is great, but so is the ability to navigate a serpentine staircase and quickly dash out of a vehicle.

And thus, the great "American Combat Rifle Debate: Why Everyone's Choice Sucks (But Not As Much As The M4)" continues.

rhs77430 · February 21, 2012, 09:05 PM

@11b do you think an 16 inch or 18 inch barrel could effectively split the difference? and yeah haha everyone has their own ideas about what the army/marines should use. I'm not saying the kel tec is the best choice, i'm just pointing out that it is overlooked, when perhaps it COULD be a decent choice.

cookie5 · February 21, 2012, 09:23 PM

I own the KelTech SU16 while it is more reliable than the bottom feeder AR15 types as noted from carbine classes and as an owner starting 1972 of 4 Colt ARs starting with an A1 type all the way to the A2 HBAR "I sold them during the markup of prices during the first and second Calif {assult rifle} ban. I have never been at war but if I had a choice between a Keltech or a Colt AR my choice would be with out reservation an AR. The 3 shot burst sucks IMO.The Keltec is no more than a real nice handy light carbine I would say perfect for cop type use. The AR has a 50 year track record and it can be said it works!. I am sure there are complaints and problem areas in all the worlds military rifles .

taylorce1 · February 21, 2012, 09:38 PM

I wish there was a big "yawn" emoticon on here as I'm tired of watching the dead horse being beat. Like already stated several times I'd like to really know how this is a much better option than the M4/M16 rifle currently in use? I've never had a problem with my M16A2 or M4 carbine, except for a few faulty magzines used past their prime.

RC20 · February 21, 2012, 11:27 PM

Lets see

XCR has a massive bolt
XCR is simple and not small parts to loose
XCR has superior controls to the Kel Tec and the M4
XCR can change barrel lengths to suit the mission(s)
note: Nothing says you can't have squads with a mix, and bias the majority to what is most likely, but at worst you are as good as an M4.
XCR has a piston (with all due respect, lots of maint read that oil in the Sand Box is not the best idea, yes it can work but it also can be a lot better.

So, Kel Tec has the charging handle on the wrong side. Hmmm.

Quote:

as far as i know there are no reliability issues with the m4, the issue is reports that its barrel is too short to make use of the 223 round and has max effective range of 50 metre. I dont know if i believe that but thats what i've read anyway.

Maintenance issues, not reliability if maintained, but the question is why?

Barrel is too short for anything past 300 meters not 50. .223 round is always going to have issues as its primary mission is to go through things (door, armor etc), you just have to hope you kill who you poke the holes through (keep shooting till they drop)

M4 was fine for Iraq, not so good for the longer shoots (most of the time) in Afghanistant. Ergo, changeable barrel would allow that.

Not carrying extra barrel, just a mix so you have some people with the right barrel all the time and the rest in between for going the average.

Achilles11B · February 21, 2012, 11:45 PM

I'm ending this here: SAW's for everyone.

Pros:
No more issues with three-round burst and faulty magazines.

Lack of punch found in the 5.56mm round compensated with volume.

Colt, HK, FN, et al., can race to build the very first SPR M249 barrel.

An infantry squad that consists of 9 machine guns will ensure that video game developers and movie producers will have an easier time coming up with creative content (emphasis on 'creative').

Cons:
M203 + M249 = some sort of weird, awkward, impossible-to-carry black steel abomination. (This can be mitigated by bringing back the M79).

Not enough surface area to cover the entire weapon with rails to attach the latest light/laser/tactical can-opener/Special Forces combat iPod to.

Lack of 'match-grade' replacement parts ensures M249 SPR (SMPG?) project never take off.

dvdcrr · February 21, 2012, 11:51 PM

I built one of those but in 22lr.
It was very nice.

Nickel Plated · February 22, 2012, 12:03 AM

If the military goes through the trouble and expense of adopting a new rifle, I think they should just jump straight to a bullpup design. The SCARs and ACRs really don't do all that much that the M4 can't already. A bullpup would be the only thing different enough to be worth the investment of money and re-training. it would solve the issue of "We want a long barrel to make proper use of the 223. But short so we can use it in our Humvees when doing drive-bys on terrorists."

Another benefit is being the military's standard issue rifle means that it will soon flood the civilian market. And we all know we don't get enough bullpups

Scorch · February 22, 2012, 04:23 AM

Quote:

so i've been thinking, the us army has been looking for a new piston-driven carbine,

Actually, the US Army has already issued a statement that there is no advantage to a piston-operated rifle, so they are not looking for a piston-operated rifle unless it is attached to a major improvement in performance and suitability for the mission.

**Mike Irwin** · February 22, 2012, 07:10 AM

"I wouldn't feel comfortable with arming the military with a rifle made by a company that can't keep their website malware free."

Because lord knows NO other firearms company has ever been subject to any sort of cyber attack.

I'm not even going to start to go into what's wrong with that concept, Jim, but it would start with a discussion about how Keltec makes guns, but they're not really into web design, and that's why they hire it out.

Crow Hunter · February 22, 2012, 08:19 AM

Quote:

XCR is simple and not small parts to loose

Unless a screw backs out.

Bartholomew Roberts · February 22, 2012, 09:40 AM

Quote:

I think this is not taken seriously enough. if kel-tec beefed up that barrel, made the receiver out of steel, got rid of the folding part, just had the receiver one piece, and put more metal parts (trigger), but kept same design, bolt, etc, added a 3 round burst capability, you've got yourself a goddamn good rifle. thoughts?

I think there are a lot of good reasons not to take the SU16 seriously as a general-issue military rifle. Not the least of which is that it was never designed for that role and wouldn't survive the tests given to the HK416, SCAR or M4. It was designed as a lightweight ranch rifle.

By the time Keltec could reengineer that basic design to be competitive with the rifles you named, the Improved Carbine Competition would be over and the final product would be nothing like the SU-16. And it would still be built by Keltec, a company that based on what I read in the forums still has trouble with its existing civilian firearms products being less durable or reliable than the civilian market would like.

Pert316 · February 22, 2012, 10:09 AM

Come on Really!! A Keltec anything . Why don't we replace the sidearms with Hi Points.

taylorce1 · February 22, 2012, 10:36 AM

RC20 refrencing the M4:

Quote:

Barrel is too short for anything past 300 meters not 50.

How is the barrel to short to be effective on targets past 300 meters? I found the biggest problem with using the M4 effectively past 300 meters is the Army's lack of training. They just don't spend enough time at the range anymore.

When I first got to Italy in 1992 as an 11B they had a 25m indoor range on the base, I spent at least one day (if not a week) a month in there putting lead down range. Plus we would qualify on a regular range at least 3-4 times a year. When I got back to Ft Bragg in 1994-96 the monthly range trips slowed down but we still qualified about once a quarter.

I've been in the Reserves since 2001 as an 88M and I've got to qualify about once every 18 months. If I didn't still have my own AR15 I doubt I'd qualify as well as I do. Still I don't qualify Expert every time anymore like I did in my AD days, just because I don't shoot like I did. Unfortunately we spend more time in a class room learning about suicide prevention and consideration of others training most of our field time gets pushed aside to complete this “mandatory” training.

IMO the Army has started to drift to far from emphasizing basic soldier skills. Getting back to the basics and spending more time teaching soldiers to shoot (move, and communicate as well) will have a great effectiveness on the M4’s capabilities than a longer barrel could ever provide. Combat units still get to train more on AD with live ammunition however these last two wars have seen a far greater number of “non-combat” troops seeing action and these units just don’t put enough emphasis on going to the range.

kraigwy · February 22, 2012, 10:43 AM

Quote:

How is the barrel to short to be effective on targets past 300 meters? I found the biggest problem with using the M4 effectively past 300 meters is the Army's lack of training.

BINGO........................we have a winner.

cannonfire · February 22, 2012, 12:53 PM

Quote:

How is the barrel to short to be effective on targets past 300 meters? I found the biggest problem with using the M4 effectively past 300 meters is the Army's lack of training.

Agreed! I've seen someone qualify with a M4 for Marine qualifications... took that sucker to 500m. It may not be pin point accurate, but you can still hit a man sized target from that distance consistantly.

SPEMack618 · February 22, 2012, 01:28 PM

A friend of mine went to a NG Sniper Comp in Arkanasand made a 700m shot with his M-4A1 after the SASS went tits up for some reason.

It's not the weapon, it's the traning that goes behind it.

But..........something other than 62 grn FMJ would be friggin awesome.

KyJim · February 22, 2012, 05:54 PM

Quote:

"I wouldn't feel comfortable with arming the military with a rifle made by a company that can't keep their website malware free."

Because lord knows NO other firearms company has ever been subject to any sort of cyber attack.

I'm not even going to start to go into what's wrong with that concept, Jim, but it would start with a discussion about how Keltec makes guns, but they're not really into web design, and that's why they hire it out.

I guess I should have used a smilie.

It was on my mind because I was actually researching Keltec's folding 9mm carbine as a plinker and, before I realized what I had done, I clicked a link to their sight, knowing of their problem.

Thought I got infected and took appropriate steps. Took hours but all is okay. As much on me as them if there was a problem.

February 21, 2012, 08:14 PM	#1
rhs77430 Member Join Date: February 21, 2012 Location: warrensburg, mo Posts: 16	idea for a new infantry rifle- hear me out so i've been thinking, the us army has been looking for a new piston-driven carbine, to replace or upgrade the current m4 carbine. Popular candidates include the SCAR the XCR, the ACR, the H&K, but some very viable candidates have been overlooked. I want you to consider something out of left field. I think this is not taken seriously enough. if kel-tec beefed up that barrel, made the receiver out of steel, got rid of the folding part, just had the receiver one piece, and put more metal parts (trigger), but kept same design, bolt, etc, added a 3 round burst capability, you've got yourself a goddamn good rifle. thoughts?

February 21, 2012, 08:33 PM	#4
rhs77430 Member Join Date: February 21, 2012 Location: warrensburg, mo Posts: 16	gotcha see your point coyote, so make the receiver steel, but keep the foldability. is that a word? but yeah esp if made with the 16" barrel, it would have a farther effective range than a 14 1/2 inch m4 barrel. also, you could have only a select few manufactured with the m203 cuts to mount it, most would have a thick, heavy barrel.

February 21, 2012, 08:52 PM	#7
kraigwy Senior Member Join Date: June 16, 2008 Location: Wyoming Posts: 11,061	I have a better ideal. The M16a1 worked great, it was light, it was reliable and accurate. It's down fall was: 1: The 1:12 twist limited it to light bullets. 2: The sights were not readily adjustable for elevation without using the front sight. Something that is "NOT" needed, is the piston. So Go back to the M16a1, add the same weight barrel in 1:7 and the 'A2's rear sight. Keep the weight the same as the orginal M16A1. That, in the opinion of one who used the M16 in Combat, would be the perfect battle rifle. A rifle with added distance, that light weight, and worked in every enviorment our military would find itself in, from the Jungle, desert, and arctic. PS: Dump that heavy a$$ bayonet and go back to the M-7, it will do anything that needs done plus you can dig a pretty deep hole, pretty dern fast with a lot less weight. __________________ Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071 Last edited by kraigwy; February 21, 2012 at 08:59 PM.

February 21, 2012, 08:58 PM	#8
Achilles11B Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2010 Posts: 595	As an OIF vet, whose first deployment saw his unit carrying the 'A4s, clearing rooms with 20" muskets gets ridiculous. Riding in Humvees and BFV's with said muskets clanging around also gets ridiculous. Added range is great, but so is the ability to navigate a serpentine staircase and quickly dash out of a vehicle. And thus, the great "American Combat Rifle Debate: Why Everyone's Choice Sucks (But Not As Much As The M4)" continues. __________________ Good equipment will never be a substitute for good training.

February 21, 2012, 09:23 PM	#10
cookie5 Senior Member Join Date: September 1, 2011 Posts: 217	I own the KelTech SU16 while it is more reliable than the bottom feeder AR15 types as noted from carbine classes and as an owner starting 1972 of 4 Colt ARs starting with an A1 type all the way to the A2 HBAR "I sold them during the markup of prices during the first and second Calif {assult rifle} ban. I have never been at war but if I had a choice between a Keltech or a Colt AR my choice would be with out reservation an AR. The 3 shot burst sucks IMO.The Keltec is no more than a real nice handy light carbine I would say perfect for cop type use. The AR has a 50 year track record and it can be said it works!. I am sure there are complaints and problem areas in all the worlds military rifles . Last edited by cookie5; February 21, 2012 at 09:30 PM.

February 21, 2012, 08:19 PM	#2
Coyote_Buster700 Senior Member Join Date: January 12, 2012 Location: Kentucky Posts: 261	So basically... you Want Kel tec to produce an hk416... What could that hodgepodge possibly do that the m4 cant already?... NTM that when you take away the fold up capability of the Kel tek, you take away the reason to buy the su16... its a fold up carbine. To do anything else with it would be... for lack of a better word, Retarded.

February 21, 2012, 08:28 PM	#3
davery25 Senior Member Join Date: October 4, 2011 Location: Australia Posts: 318	as far as i know there are no reliability issues with the m4, the issue is reports that its barrel is too short to make use of the 223 round and has max effective range of 50 metre. I dont know if i believe that but thats what i've read anyway. Would the rifle above really do any better?

February 21, 2012, 08:35 PM	#5
rhs77430 Member Join Date: February 21, 2012 Location: warrensburg, mo Posts: 16	and i'm not saying it would have anything the competition doesnt, i'm just saying it could compete

February 21, 2012, 08:43 PM	#6
KyJim Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2005 Location: The Bluegrass Posts: 9,142	I wouldn't feel comfortable with arming the military with a rifle made by a company that can't keep their website malware free.

February 21, 2012, 09:05 PM	#9
rhs77430 Member Join Date: February 21, 2012 Location: warrensburg, mo Posts: 16	@11b do you think an 16 inch or 18 inch barrel could effectively split the difference? and yeah haha everyone has their own ideas about what the army/marines should use. I'm not saying the kel tec is the best choice, i'm just pointing out that it is overlooked, when perhaps it COULD be a decent choice.

February 21, 2012, 09:38 PM	#11
taylorce1 Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2005 Location: On the Santa Fe Trail Posts: 8,249	I wish there was a big "yawn" emoticon on here as I'm tired of watching the dead horse being beat. Like already stated several times I'd like to really know how this is a much better option than the M4/M16 rifle currently in use? I've never had a problem with my M16A2 or M4 carbine, except for a few faulty magzines used past their prime. __________________ NRA Life Member Last edited by taylorce1; February 22, 2012 at 10:12 AM.

February 21, 2012, 11:45 PM	#13
Achilles11B Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2010 Posts: 595	I'm ending this here: SAW's for everyone. Pros: No more issues with three-round burst and faulty magazines. Lack of punch found in the 5.56mm round compensated with volume. Colt, HK, FN, et al., can race to build the very first SPR M249 barrel. An infantry squad that consists of 9 machine guns will ensure that video game developers and movie producers will have an easier time coming up with creative content (emphasis on 'creative'). Cons: M203 + M249 = some sort of weird, awkward, impossible-to-carry black steel abomination. (This can be mitigated by bringing back the M79). Not enough surface area to cover the entire weapon with rails to attach the latest light/laser/tactical can-opener/Special Forces combat iPod to. Lack of 'match-grade' replacement parts ensures M249 SPR (SMPG?) project never take off. __________________ Good equipment will never be a substitute for good training.

February 21, 2012, 11:51 PM	#14
dvdcrr Senior Member Join Date: July 5, 2010 Posts: 665	I built one of those but in 22lr. It was very nice.

February 22, 2012, 12:03 AM	#15
Nickel Plated Senior Member Join Date: January 17, 2010 Location: Brooklyn, NYC Posts: 610	If the military goes through the trouble and expense of adopting a new rifle, I think they should just jump straight to a bullpup design. The SCARs and ACRs really don't do all that much that the M4 can't already. A bullpup would be the only thing different enough to be worth the investment of money and re-training. it would solve the issue of "We want a long barrel to make proper use of the 223. But short so we can use it in our Humvees when doing drive-bys on terrorists." Another benefit is being the military's standard issue rifle means that it will soon flood the civilian market. And we all know we don't get enough bullpups

February 22, 2012, 07:10 AM	#17
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,390	"I wouldn't feel comfortable with arming the military with a rifle made by a company that can't keep their website malware free." Because lord knows NO other firearms company has ever been subject to any sort of cyber attack. I'm not even going to start to go into what's wrong with that concept, Jim, but it would start with a discussion about how Keltec makes guns, but they're not really into web design, and that's why they hire it out. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

February 22, 2012, 10:09 AM	#20
Pert316 Member Join Date: March 23, 2011 Posts: 42	What!! Come on Really!! A Keltec anything . Why don't we replace the sidearms with Hi Points.

February 22, 2012, 01:28 PM	#24
SPEMack618 Senior Member Join Date: June 21, 2010 Location: Central Georgia Posts: 1,863	A friend of mine went to a NG Sniper Comp in Arkanasand made a 700m shot with his M-4A1 after the SASS went tits up for some reason. It's not the weapon, it's the traning that goes behind it. But..........something other than 62 grn FMJ would be friggin awesome. __________________ NRA Life Member Read my blog! "The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!"