The "rifle after next"


PDA






Mark Tyson
March 29, 2003, 07:52 PM
Scenario:

Say you have just been appointed to select a replacement for the M-16A2 as a service rifle for all of the armed forces. What weapon would you choose?

If you enjoyed reading about "The "rifle after next"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Schuey2002
March 29, 2003, 08:12 PM
A H&K, of course. Hehehe.

Say it with me...Geeee thuuuurteeee siiix.:D

Feanaro
March 29, 2003, 08:18 PM
How about the M16A3? Bring back full auto. :D

Seriously, the M16A2 isn't going to be replaced anytime soon though. It works, perhaps not as well as some other rifles but it's good enough. And it would cost a lot to replace it.

DMK
March 29, 2003, 08:48 PM
No retraining necessary, keep the manual of arms the same. .308 ammo is already in the supply chain.

OK, that's solved. Next problem? Yea, about those 9mm sidearms...

Mark Tyson
March 29, 2003, 09:08 PM
I second the motion for the AR-10! A fine weapon indeed.

coonan357
March 29, 2003, 09:19 PM
I agree , power , distance , mr stoner would be proud !!! if not that then the FN /FAL and like someone said earlier sidearms too .. umm Does 1911 ring a bell?? :rolleyes:

cratz2
March 29, 2003, 11:17 PM
M4 with a bit looser chamber for added reliability, a 16" barrel for a bit more velocity and that fires a 6x47 with a quicker burning powder to get the most out of that short 16" barrel. And since I'm calling the shots, we ditch FMJ ammo for a 75 or 80 Gr Hornady SST bullet which they haven't come out with yet but would once I offered them such a lucrative contract. ;)

coonan357
March 29, 2003, 11:29 PM
cratz , has to be fmj ( ball ) for the hauge accord .

Marko Kloos
March 29, 2003, 11:45 PM
[cranky old man voice]

By golly, I'd give our troopers an honest-to-goodness fighting rifle, the tried-and-true Springfield 1873 Trapdoor! Real fighting rounds come in .45 caliber, four-hunnert grain bullet over 70 grains of blackpowder, and that's the way we likes it!

Them newfangled thutty-caliber bullets don't have no stopping power, and don't get me started on them twenty-twos! Twenny-two is fer shootin' chipmunks, not enemy soldiery!

[/cranky old man voice]

ahadams
March 29, 2003, 11:59 PM
lendringser - reminds me of a vet I knew in AZ who would lecture anyone who would listen (this was mid-80's, mind you) that *real* men only needed bolt action rifles to get the job done...:rolleyes:

I second the AR-10. While as far as sidearms go I prefer the 1911A1 myself (well the Kimber version of same in any case) in order to pretend to meet Nato specs, er, I mean, in order to follow modern military practice we might need to consider a DA/SA pistol with a hammer drop safety to impress all the congressional weenies, er I mean meet congressional funding specifications...darn! I guess it's no wonder they never let me get around the visiting dignitaries when I was on active duty, eh?;)

Jeff White
March 30, 2003, 12:14 AM
The rifle after next doesn't exist. It's in some designer's mind. When technology catches up with what the designers envision, then you'll see a new rifle, until then it's the M16 series.

Lets face it, until we have another improvement in technology on a par with the development of smokeless powder there is no reason to change.

Lendringser,
You and that wimpy .45/70....Real men only needed the .75 cal Brown Bess...now there was a round...:D

Jeff

Blain
March 30, 2003, 02:39 AM
I would demand that the M14 rifle replace the M16A2 and hire contractors to build new ones true to origonal government specs. Time to get a REAL rifle into our troops hands!

Devonai
March 30, 2003, 02:59 AM
Discussed at length here (http://forums.firearmsmod.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38987).

Feanaro
March 30, 2003, 03:34 AM
The M14 is sort of a waste, I think. The average trooper rarely fires beyond 300 meters, last I heard. The M16A3 can hit out to that distance and a little farther. And while some say the 308 round has more power and such, a wounded enemy ties down other people. :)

Tamara
March 30, 2003, 12:04 PM
You and that wimpy .45/70....Real men only needed the .75 cal Brown Bess...now there was a round...

I don't trust them flintlocks; suppose it don't spark? We never should've dropped matchlocks; with them, you could see the fire.

:D

beckrodgers
March 30, 2003, 12:05 PM
Thanks for the link to that forum,dont know when we''ll have time to visit but looks real good!

Tamara
March 30, 2003, 12:17 PM
Going to Counterstrike sites where they attempt to have serious gun discussions just gives me headaches.

For every one thoughtful and informed post, you have ten by folks who have never touched a real firearm.

Redlg155
March 30, 2003, 12:31 PM
I'm thinking an AK based gas operation system shooting a hybrid 6mm round. Of course it would have a railed forward grip for all those neat items we like to hang on them.

Good Shooting
RED

Devonai
March 30, 2003, 02:06 PM
Going to Counterstrike sites where they attempt to have serious gun discussions just gives me headaches.

This particular forum is less prone to that sort of nonsense by a few members such as myself who actually know what we're talking about. The thread I linked is an excellent discussion about "the rifle after next" with very little bullplop betwixt.

Telperion
March 30, 2003, 05:29 PM
How about a caseless ammunition system? IMO, the elimination of the cartridge case is the next great development in small arms, screw this electronic OICW nonsense. It's sad to see that after the G11 project failure, nobody has taken up further R&D.

Thumper
March 30, 2003, 06:31 PM
What did I miss? Is the OICW off the table?

"And ta hell with you youngsters and your new fangled shootin' irons...where'd I put my sharp rock?"

Marko Kloos
March 30, 2003, 07:49 PM
The OICW was never intended as a general issue rifle replacement, but rather as an M16/M203 replacement...one OICW per fire team. The ACR program was supposed to find a replacement general issue rifle, but they dropped the ACR when neither of the candidates achieved the (unrealistic) 100% improvement in capability over the M16A2.

ENC
March 31, 2003, 01:54 AM
Don't bring a gun to a "board with a nail in it" fight :D

swingset
March 31, 2003, 05:31 AM
I'd replace the M16A2 with the Sig550.

Why? Do I need a reason?:evil:

DMK
March 31, 2003, 09:12 AM
And while some say the 308 round has more power and such, a wounded enemy ties down other people. Yea, yours. A wounded enemy may still be able to shoot back.

Feanaro
March 31, 2003, 09:35 AM
I should probably have gone into a better description of wounded. Someone with a large hole in their chest or stomach is unlikely to fire back, I would think. (Of course, what I think and what really happens is often wrong. :) ) Obviously a wound to the limbs might not remove someone from combat.

Bostonterrier97
March 31, 2003, 12:33 PM
I think that I would use an M14...but rechambered for 260 or 257 Ackerly Roberts Improved, and restocked with a Synthetic Stock.

If in 6.5mm..I would use 140 grain rounds. If in .257 I would use 120 grain rounds.

45R
March 31, 2003, 07:35 PM
AR-10

Glock Glockler
March 31, 2003, 08:52 PM
A beefed up and modified Sig 550 chambered for 6.5 Glockler (A 7.62 x 39 Russian or 7.62 x 45 Czech case necked down to 6.5mm).

That should do the job quite nicely.

Steel
April 1, 2003, 12:25 PM
lendringser: that was WAY funny!

If you enjoyed reading about "The "rifle after next"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!