"As with the CN-20, the CN-22 is chambered for the 5.56×45 mm cartridge and its internal components are largely based on the AK gas-operated system. However, unlike the CN-20 it is configured to allow for fully ambidextrous operation and to accommodate three Picatinny rails for mounting accessories.
According to a specifications sheet that refers to the CN-20 but contains images of the CN-22, the rifle has a minimum effective range of 350 m and a rate of fire of 550 rounds per minute. Excluding its 30-round magazine, the CN-22 weighs 3.5 kg.
Two configurations of the CN-22 were presented at BSDA – a medium version with a 13.5 inch barrel and a standard version with a 16 inch barrel. These barrels are rated for a minimum of 15,000 rounds.
Both configurations of the CN-22 displayed at BSDA were equipped with flip-up iron sights, but they will also be offered with the ACS-X1 magnified red dot optic from Romanian company Stimpex."
Because, whether this forum wants to admit it or not, the M4 system is dated and is increasingly being left behind? And maybe, just maybe, the M4 isn’t the end all and be all of rifles and carbines?
Modularity and the ability to hang stuff off of it is the M4’s saving grace, in addition to it’s relatively light weight. The gas impingment/internal piston system is not the best out there, albeit more than adequate.
I don’t know if it can be said that any rifle made since the AR came on the scene has been vastly superior. But many rifles that have been created since the AR have fixed various shortcomings of the design, and some rifles are inherently better at some things than the M4…and likewise, inferior in other ways. For countries already issuing M16/M4 rifles, it’s tough to really justify making a lateral change to near equivalent rifle. But if a country is looking to upgrade from their Cold War era AKs or FALs, I don’t think that the M4 is necessarily the one and only option that they should consider.
There is a lot more to a government weapons program than the end result. There is likely a strong desire to establish or improve domestic engineering and manufacturing capabilities, and designing a rifle from the ground up and getting it into production is a way to do that. Potentially a better overall outcome overall than giving your money to a foreign firm.
It’s really a rifle and the round issue. A DI M4 shooting heavy ammo is ‘OK’. And the ammo and the gun are linked by the magazine (well). So it seems that a 6-7mm 120gr-ish bullet is the optimum, and what powder and charge wt is needed to get the minimum muzzle velocity out of the shortest barrel (8inch?). Even better if it will take a heavy bullet for sub work. Figure out the best case shape and dimensions, maybe leave some room for better capacity/performance. Use an AR18 bolt/operating system design. Maximize the polymer use, minimize the machining while keeping it modular and more rails than an NBA coke party. Bonus points for an easily swappable barrel and the ability to act as a light machine gun, and the that cool zero recoil.
So a Stoner 63, meets Ultimax, meets FG42 with some Knights magic thrown in.
Since people wish to answer this, but can’t, I’ll point out that it was rhetorical, and a “trick question”. There is no weapon that has been demonstrated to be measurably superior to the M4. But the same may be true of this gun, as well.
Legumeofterror answered Hotbiggun’s question very well.
Demonstrated by what metrics? Who sets those metrics? Like I said earlier, the M4 has it’s weight and modularity going for it, which are probably the biggest selling points and the reason why it’s so popular. It’s gas system is probably where any disagreement would come in. To my knowledge the Stoner gas system is the only “direct impingement”/internal piston setup in the world (the MAS 49/56 doesn’t count, as it was a true direct impingement…I used to have one). Every other weapon uses some type of long or short stroke piston system, or the roller-delayed blowback of the HK persuasion.
So demonstrating a superior weapon using the M4 as one of the participants is going to be VERY subjective. Most soldiers are gonna choose lighter weight and the ability to hang their optical and electronic doo-dads on it. Adding a piston almost always increases weight to some degree. Ounces is pounds, yada yada…