the ideal rifle for the military


PDA






icebones
February 10, 2008, 09:27 PM
with all the bad reports from the troops about the m4/m16a2 rifles constant jamming, and low stopping power due to short barrel length, is it so hard to ask for a better weapon?

If you enjoyed reading about "the ideal rifle for the military" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
BobTheTomato
February 10, 2008, 09:31 PM
My guess is a great deal of politics goes into selection and the purchase of it. It cant be easy to do something in DC without alot of fighting.....plus I am sure companies have a lot at stake with existing contracts.

alsaqr
February 10, 2008, 09:32 PM
The few dozen infantry folks that I have talked with have no problem with the M4 or M16. The big problem is that the squad automatic weapon, the SAW, is too light for the job. Infantry squads used to have an M60 machine gun as the squad automatic weapon.

Number 6
February 10, 2008, 09:32 PM
with all the bad reports from the troops about the m4/m16a2 rifles constant jamming, and low stopping power due to short barrel length, is it so hard to ask for a better weapon?

Yes it is. Soldiers complain, weapons jam, people use unscientific data to show that certain weapons are not up to par.

icebones
February 10, 2008, 09:45 PM
not that the ar-15 series are bad weapons, i love my m4 and ar-15, but they have flaws, the direct gas impengement system, for one, it does simplify the action, but it sprays powder fouling back into the bolt and reciever. causing problems if not cleaned after 250-300 rounds. another problem is the ar-15 is a conventional layout, more and more countires are adopting bullpup rifles, for good reason more compact and longer barrel.

since i am going to be on an air force base for the next 6 years, it would be a good ideal to start drawing up plans.

I have a vision of the perfect rifle...
this rifle i have invisioned should meet the following criteria
---bullpup layout, because i am right handed ambi-layout really dosent matter to me. a bullpup is much shorter than conventional rifles, this is extremely important in urban combat where a short, light and fast wepon can save you life and the lives of your fellow soliders.
---a standard barrel length of at least 24'' to obtain high velocity and accuracy, this also results in greater stopping power.
---chambered in 5.56x45mm, even better if the barrel could be made with carbon fiber=less weight, stronger than steel and resistant to overheating
---an overall length of less than 30'' with the 24'' bbl attached, this does sound drastic, but it is possible with the right bolt design
---a gas-operated action with an gas-op rod and tapped system for greater reliability and less fouling.
---accepts standard STNAG m16 mags and drums
---weights no more than 6 lbs empty, w/o magazine, this is where the use of carbon fiber, alloys and synthetics would come into play.
---a picatinny rail for mounting optics, also a quad rail system for mounting foregrips, laser, lights ect.
---an ideal service life of at least 20,000 rounds with ss109 military spec ammunition
---a design which allows the weapon to be field stripped and parts changed out with no tools, except a cartridge for punching out pins, also a modular design so barrels and other parts could be swapped for flexibility, so a carbine, rifle, squad machinegun, designated marksmans rifle could be made.
---ergonomic controlls that are easy to manupulate under extreme stress and adverse conditions, but at the same time, sleek, unobtrusive and snag proof
---speaking of bolt design, i am thinking of either a telescopic bolt (UZI stlye) or a hinged bolt like that found on the new KRISS super V smg, this bolt desing would also reduce recoil. if you have not heard of the new KRISS i strongly suggest checking it out, an intersiting weapon indeed, a .45caliber smg with almost ZERO RECOIL.
---above all this new rifle will be 100% reliable in any condition, easy to use under stress, rugged, light weight, low maintenece, provide the troops with greater stopping power, simple in design and maintenence, and compact in size. also fast and easy to produce to reduce production costs and unit price. this rifle should cost less than $350-$450 to produce in materials and labor

Matt-J2
February 10, 2008, 09:51 PM
Here we go again.






I think the military should just switch to double rifles and dueling pistols, and fight with proper gentlemanly weapons.

miestro_jerry
February 10, 2008, 10:05 PM
I went thru boot camp with the M14, I currently own a M1a Match and have owned many over the years. This rifle was brought out of storage to be used in the same role that the M1 Garand was in WWII. The M4s and like weapons are just replacements for Tommy Guns, Grease Guns and the like.

Every man should have a dependable rifle with only a few should have pray and spray weapons.

Jerry

RNB65
February 10, 2008, 10:12 PM
If someone offered up a rifle that was a substantial improvement over the AR, the military would switch. So far no one has. It's as simple as that. HK tried to develop a better mousetrap with the XM8 but the project was badly mismanaged, over budget, and the rifle had several significant developmental issues and the project was killed. I suspect the AR platform will be the rifle of choice for the military for at least a couple decades to come.
.

Sergeant Sabre
February 10, 2008, 10:15 PM
with all the bad reports from the troops about the m4/m16a2 rifles constant jamming

Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

The ideal rifle for our military is the M16, in whatever variation they have now. Mine was a Colt M16a2. It won't let you down.

W.E.G.
February 10, 2008, 10:16 PM
You keep ask the question.

You know what is the answer.

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/Mikhail_Kalashnikov.jpg

P-32
February 10, 2008, 10:17 PM
I don't believe there is anything wrong with the M-16 platform. The problem is there is no 1 weapon system which will meet every requirement the armed forces come across. It's the same as trying to use my deer rifle for high power competition. Yeah it, could shoot it but it just won't shoot it very well and would need to be heavily mod'ed. Would I need a rifle made just for High Power? Sure but it won't hunt so well either.

H2O MAN
February 10, 2008, 10:24 PM
Any military that goes into battle without fielding a main battle rifle is lacking...

KC&97TA
February 10, 2008, 10:25 PM
How come my M16's have never jammed in Iraq or Afganistan?


Did I just get the 'good ones'?


Or maybe it has to due with proper enviromental lubercation and being a well disiplined Marine, who keeps his weapon clean and instills onto his NCO's to keep thier weapons clean and ensure the jr Marines keep thier weapons clean.


Someone please explain this to a Marine Engineer who's been in the Marine Corps for 8-1/2 years, rolled with the grunts into places we'll never see on the news and never experianced the things I hear about M16 failure on the internet.

MD_Willington
February 10, 2008, 11:29 PM
would be like RAID...

point and click, kills (insert what or who they are killing here) DEAD...

mljdeckard
February 10, 2008, 11:44 PM
The reports coming from soldiers in Iraq cannot be given full credit. What rifle can they possibly be comparing it to? None of them have been in the military since 1965, the M-16 is the only rifle they know that they have had full training with and carried to war.

As others have said, I must be VERY lucky. The only M-16 I ever had problems with was one I used in basic training at Ft. Knox in 1991, which was an A-1 with a mish-mash of A-2 parts, I only used it for blanks, I never had to qualify with it. Even my guard unit gave me a sparkling A-2.

The M-16 has been our issued rifle longer than ANY OTHER RIFLE IN THE HISTORY OF THE U.S. ARMY. In October I took my squad to the range to qualify. I had a female E-2 from Fresno, 105 lbs, thick glasses, small hands, who had never touched a firearm prior to entering the army about 9 months before. She qualified expert. Do any of you battle rifle fans think she could have done that with an M-14?

I'm not thrilled with a 5.56 either. I would not hunt game the same weight as a human with it. The difference is, a good select-fire rifle makes it likely that you can hit more than once. a heavier round has exactly zero advantage if my soldiers can't hit with it.

All the new revolutions of ammo, 6 point whatever, ad nauseum, nothing is giving a distinct advantage as long as we are using steel-core FMJ. And when in unknown engagements, where the enemy may or may not be in vehicles or behind cover, I PREFER 62 gr steel-core. I would be willing to entertain one of the newer rifle designs with a gas-piston instead of a tube, but I would like it even more if I saw one that can be fitted to existing rifles without too much trouble.

Eightball
February 11, 2008, 12:18 AM
I think the military should just switch to double rifles and dueling pistols, and fight with proper gentlemanly weapons.+1

Since ARs are jammomatic toys that are weaker than throwing disembodied frog legs at people, the plasma rifles seem to be gaining in popularity.
http://www.damninteresting.net/content/PHASR_Rifle.jpg

But if you must have absolute reliability and knockdown power, the double rifle in .416 rigby is a must have, especially if you disregard all literature regarding proper cleaning and maintenance of one's rifle:
http://www.granitearms.com/Library/Merkel-500-lge.jpg
It can take down mere elephants, but if you really don't want to chance it, the .500 NE does the trick, but you can't carry as many rounds for the weight difference.

:rolleyes:

Matt-J2
February 11, 2008, 12:29 AM
Plasma rifles are for fighting dirty, they'd certainly be outside the bounds of propriety.

However, if we're going to fight dirty, then dammit, we're going to have sharks with frikkin laser beams on their heads.

Ignition Override
February 11, 2008, 12:36 AM
My vast rifle experience: A few times with the powerful ancient Savage .22 single-shot over 20 years and then several well-briefed missions (with no air support) against dangerous, empty Tropicana juice jugs using my new store-bought M-1 Carbine... until it broke after two months and was sent back to the (Kahr) factory.

Pardon me for quoting from a book here, the "The Great Book of Guns", by Chris McNab, Thunder Bay Press. Found it at Borders Books in December.
There are full pages dedicated to Fabrique Nationale, the Garand in WW2, the Ak-47 and the M-16 in Vietnam etc.

"The list of guns produced by FN (Liege, then Herstal Belgium) before 1949 includes the Browning Hi-Power 9 mm handgun, the B. M1917, M1919, and M2 machine guns; the Browning BAR; and the Mauser Mle 1924 rifle. Even 40mm Bofors were manuf. from 1936 on". I can imagine some of you now :rolleyes:

Now a pertinent quote from a section (p. 313), "The Switch To Small Caliber", about going from 7.62 to 5.56: about the 7.62 " It generated heavy recoil forces, making it unsuited to three-round burst and full-auto fire in an assault rifle, extending the training times required...".

"The most important factor in the debate, however, is that any bullet must hit a vital physical structure to guarantee a kill on a human target; cavitation or physical shock are not sufficient in themselves". His description of the SS109 (M-16) round: "The takedown power is ensured if a vital area is struck".

I know little about guns, but the book is quite interesting and informative for a novice (trying to play 'catch-up'), but not as much as your real-world debate. I would like to find a page on the Internet which has clear pictures of vital gun components in semi-automatics (Ruger Mini, M-1 Carbine) such as the extractor, various parts of the action, gas tube etc in order to find out exactly where they are and what they look like :o(hint, hint).
My ignorance is quite vast, but I am only recently so enthusiastic about military rifles. A German friend (has a very reliable Colt AR-15 and a Walther [he is from Essen but has no Ger. rifles]) and my wife are surprised by it.

MechAg94
February 11, 2008, 12:39 AM
I see the comment a lot that the M16 shoves burnt powder and crap back into the receiver. Can some one please point out a modern semi-auto rifle that doesn't do this? Every semi-auto rifle I own pushes some crap back into the receiver when they eject the spent shell. They all get dirty. Lack of a direct impingement system does not mean the receiver stays clean.

Now there are some good reasons why the AK (for example) withstands the dirt and crap in the receiver, but using a piston alone isn't it.

Slvr Surfr
February 11, 2008, 01:30 AM
The current Gas Impingement design uses the spent gas from a fired round to cycle the bolt carrier back. The gas is blown into the bolt carrier and chamber. This repeated action puts burnt powder residue, carbon, and crud back into this vital area and could cause an issue if not cleaned properly. Add in lubricant, and harsh environment conditions and it makes for a bad mix. This subject has hashed over many times. A Gas Piston design limits the amount of spent gas from reaching the bolt carrier and bolt chamber. It also reduces the amount of heat being put on the bolt carrier, bolt, and chamber.

12131
February 11, 2008, 01:31 AM
with all the bad reports from the troops about the m4/m16a2 rifles constantly jamming...
Really:rolleyes:.

Andrewsky
February 11, 2008, 01:45 AM
12131 said:

Really.

I'll bet you don't even own any AR15s. The only thing you could do to prove me wrong is post a picture.

:neener::evil::D

Tokugawa
February 11, 2008, 01:51 AM
Secret investigation has shown the existence of a 50 mega joule laser rifle that runs off two AA batteries , weighs 3 pounds and after blowing through both sides of an Abrams has enough leftover energy to pop chunks out of the backside of the moon. Yet this rifle has not been issued to our troops, who are in desperate need. :D

elmerfudd
February 11, 2008, 02:32 AM
To go off in a slightly different direction, I think that what the world needs is a radical revision of the AK. It should still be made out of stamped sheet metal, caveman simple, long-stroke piston, and dirt cheap, but it needs to be redesigned to have the receiver lie along the upper half of the rifle so that a fixed rail and a good peep sight can be attached to it. The front trunnion should have a protruding extension to provide a solid base to mount different forearms, (rails, free float tubes, grenade launchers, etc...). Rather than try to figure out a new charging handle on the left side, the rifles should just be made left handed. And an easily operated and quiet safety should be added as well as a LRBHO.

I think the problem with most revisions of the AK is that they forget that what has made the original so successful is it's simplicity and affordability as much as it's reliability. Valmet and Swiss Arms make beautiful rifles, but they're not the kind of weapons that third world armies and revolutionaries can afford.

C-grunt
February 11, 2008, 04:34 AM
Why is it these "reports" always say the rifle/ammo doesnt work, but all the veterans have no problems with it? Why is it a lot of Soldiers/Marines I know return and buy an AR-15?

Because A) the reports are fake and B) the M-16 family is a good rifle.

General Geoff
February 11, 2008, 04:41 AM
You know, the first thing I did when I read this thread was I did a search for the term "plasma rifle."

You guys never let me down. :D

Eightball
February 11, 2008, 07:51 AM
You know, the first thing I did when I read this thread was I did a search for the term "plasma rifle."As did I. Couldn't find the usual picture quick enough, and this time, I wanted to be "that guy." :P

alsaqr
February 11, 2008, 08:19 AM
"Why is it these "reports" always say the rifle/ammo doesnt work, but all the veterans have no problems with it? Why is it a lot of Soldiers/Marines I know return and buy an AR-15?"

+1

researchdoc
February 11, 2008, 09:00 AM
Gas operated, larger caliber.
I think that Masada would be good, sans the connection to Bushmaster.
Doesn't Sig have a gas operated system being bid to the Military right now?

Sergeant Sabre
February 11, 2008, 12:33 PM
Why is it these "reports" always say the rifle/ammo doesnt work, but all the veterans have no problems with it? Why is it a lot of Soldiers/Marines I know return and buy an AR-15?

Because A) the reports are fake and B) the M-16 family is a good rifle.

And because C) "anecdote" does not equal "report" and D) the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Direct impingement is no problem. Do the detractors of direct impingement feel that particles in the gas are going to stop the bolt carrier group from cycling? Maybe it's supposed to stop the lugs on the bolt from sliding between the lugs in the receiver? Well whatever it is, it doesn't happen in practice. Never has to me, and never has to any of the Marines I know.

The only M-16 malfunctions I've had were misfires caused by bad primers on boot-camp range ammo, and a couple of double-feeds using blanks on a training rifle.

On the topic of ammo, I love the 5.56. I don't buy the six-point-who-cares junk one bit. Anybody who believes the 5.56 noses-over and fragments inside a body knows that it's devastating, and that the 6mm junk isn't needed. For those who think 5.56 M855 pencils straight through, ONE more millimeter of pencil will not make a whit of difference.

RP88
February 11, 2008, 12:42 PM
problems I've heard of are:

-foregrip would rattle and overheat at times, especially in full-auto
-even though soldiers like the full-auto, they want a larger magizine capacity for it
-those adjusting from the longer M16 said that "it felt a little off-balance at first"

no reason going into ammo ballistics since thats a whole different thread

icebones
February 11, 2008, 04:33 PM
not that i am saying the ar-15 style rifles are bad, i said earlier that i own 2.
i regulary shoot 200-300 rounds at a time and provides i clean these rifles when i'm done they run fine, i have never has any jams or maulfunctions, but shooting milk jugs on the weekends doent compare to combat, especially in the desert. fine sand, dust, heat and powder build up can play havoc on any weapon.
i seen an episode of american rifleman, or guns&ammo tv , i cant remember which, but any way, one of the guys on there fired a S&W mp15 rifle for thousands of rounds, without stopping or cleaning, he just gave the bolt a shot of break-free about every 200 rounds, this is a simple solution to a problem that many people over state keep the AR lubed with light oil.
think of the ar-15 like a car engine, as long at it has lubrication, it will continue to run, take away the lube and it will still run for a while but then it will stop.

its not the 5.56mm round that is the problem neither, it is the short barrel m4 that are firing it, the 5.56mm is a round that depends on a high muzzle velocity to produce stopping power. the origional m-16 with a 20'' bbl and a 55 grasin lead core rounds were devastating, but switch to a m4 with a short 12.5'' bbl and heavier 62 grain steel core rounds, performance degrades.

also the m4 shorter gas tube creates problems with the timing of the action, the shorter tube, causes the botl to begin extraction of the spent caasing while it is still adhearing to the chamber via residual pressure.

i am simply saying that in close quarters a bullpup rifle is better than a conventional.

as far as the xm-8 program being cancelled, well thats politics doing what it does best: screwing up everything for everyone.
the cheapest solution for the military would be to pruchase the HK 416 upper recievers,(which can be quickly and easily mounted to the lowers already in stock) this would save substantual money and give us a better weapon.
-also the trials for the new .45 sercive handgun was cancelled, once again politics and bean-counters. people can argue about the m-16 rifles untill the end of the world, but you cant argue that a 9x19mm beats a .45acp, especially in combat.

icebones
February 11, 2008, 04:50 PM
then again the most common problem with any rifle is its feeding system, did any of yall know that the magazines for the m16 rifles were intended to be one-time-use and thrown away? but guess what, politics and bean-counters again, the problem is almost all military magazines are almunium construction, compared to steel AK mags, and high strength polymer magazines aluminum is easily damaged.

i have also personally seen military issue magazines for the m4 and m9 that lacked sufficuent spring pressure, the rounds were literally falling out.

time for the desk jockies to stop whining about money and but some new mags, the new steel ones from HK are, in my opinion the best i have ever used.

one more thing: plasma rifles? get real, unless you have a rail gun in you basement, i will stick to good old fashoned lead and powder

KBintheSLC
February 11, 2008, 04:59 PM
You keep ask the question.

You know what is the answer.

+1

Can anyone say Kalashnikov?

Why is it these "reports" always say the rifle/ammo doesnt work, but all the veterans have no problems with it? Why is it a lot of Soldiers/Marines I know return and buy an AR-15?

Because A) the reports are fake and B) the M-16 family is a good rifle.

How about C: thats all they know

Have you talked to "all the veterans" to prove such statements? I personally spoke to a vet at the range who had some very serious issues with his M-16 in Iraq. You see, the system does not like sand and dust. BTW, he was shooting an M1A at the range that day.

Look... I doubt anyone is saying the M-16 family is garbage. It's just that it requires too much pampering to function flawlessly. It may be more accurate than an AK, but if it starts jamming after 300 rounds (without cleaning), whats the point? IMO, the M-16 is best suited for the SWAT team. They usually participate in very short gun fights, in forgiving urban environments.

RNB65
February 11, 2008, 05:26 PM
You know what is the answer.

Sub-atomic weasel launcher.

:neener:

Joe the Redneck
February 11, 2008, 06:00 PM
OK, I will skip then endless debate about the 556, the M16, the AK, plasma rifles and zombies and try to answer the question.

I would like to see something like an "upsized" P90 that uses caseless ammunition.

That is the first weapon I have seen since the Glock that actually offered some new thinking. It is designed to use optical sights and the top mounted mag has a lot of potential.

The caseless ammo is simply the next step in ammo. It will come to pass, it has taken far too long, but it will get there.

My 2 cents

Joe

icebones
February 11, 2008, 06:15 PM
yes caseless ammunition would be the next step, remember the hk g-11 geramny developed during the late 1980's it fired caseless rounds, but sadly the rifle and its cartridge was to far ahead for its time. the main problems with caseless ammunition would be:
---problems with handiling, oils, solvents, dust, moisture and even the oils and salts on the human skin can wreck havoc with propellant. also the propellant must be able to withstand being carried around in combat, shipping and distribution, loaded and unloaded from magazines multipule times.
---problems with heat, conventional ammunition uses brass, steel, aluminum or copper casings. these casing help (to some degree) with insualting with propellant from a hot barrel. caseless rounds (with current technology) would be prone to cooking off. also the priming compound must also be taken into account,
---combat capability, imagine if a caseless round were to become jammed during the feeding cycle, in worst case the propellant would be crushed into a powder and spilled into the weapons reciever, bad news with hostile rounds tearing over your head. also caseless rounds must be able to withstand extreme heat and cold.

if caseless rounds could be developed they would almost certainly give an advantage over conventional ammunition, less weight, less use of critical metal and material, simplified weapon design because there is no case the weapon would need no ejector, extractor, nor ejection port, although a cover to jammed rounds could be removed would be needed.

a way around this problem would be to use long bulets, approximately 3'' long of about 5.56mm caliber. about 3/4'' of the projectile nose would be conventional copper jacket and lead (or steel) with the rest of the projectile being hollow and filled with propellant and priming compount, think of it like a year 2008 version of the pin-fire musket cartridge, but without the short comings,
this round would be stable in flight, due to its length, provide greater stopping power due to its increased weight and the brittle and vulnerable propellant would be protected by the projectile's body. an idea to ponder on perhaps?

icebones
February 11, 2008, 06:27 PM
correction
when i said "pin fire musket" i actually meant a needle gun
the pin fire is a completely diffrent style of weapon

what i actually was referring to was the Dreyse needle-gun

my bad.

dr0
February 11, 2008, 07:00 PM
http://www.fnhusa1.com/PDF/MIL_Catalog_web.pdf

Has some pictures of the new Browning/FN rifles that the military is testing. THere are 5.56 and 7.62 variations. They are somewhat compatible with the AR-15 series but seem to be correcting the obvious problems.

I've shot all the major (and most minor) military semi-autos and the original Browning FN is still the all around best of the .308 series, in my opinion.

The AR-15 series has many benefits over the FN and that era though, so I see why the military adopted them. The caliber is easier to carry, easier to shoot, more controllable in burst or full auto mode. The gun itself has very nice ergos and the flat tops are champs for mounting scopes on. The dustcover top of the FN isn't a scope mounting platform.

Still, and with all due respect to the Marine that posted here, they do jam more than other designs, especially if exposed to grit and sand. Yes, proper maintenance can prevent this. But I've layed prone on a dry lake bed shooting my AR-10 and had it jam after about 30 minutes of shooting with alkaline dust everywhere. Maybe the marines don't have problems with them, but what about the Army? :uhoh:

Anyway I'm thinking these new FN's maybe the best of both worlds. FN reliabiltiy with M-16 feel.

As for rounds I think the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC are both a step in the right direction. The Grendel in particular is brilliant. Sadly it probably doesn't have the right pedigree to get adopted.

For better or worse the AR-15 platform is our rifle and shortcomings and all we seem to be able to make them work and work well for us.

Rifleman 173
February 11, 2008, 07:14 PM
The .223/5.56 caliber rifle sucks. This is from a Viet Nam veteran who never did like that little piece of crap. Sometimes it'll shoot. Sometimes it'll jam. The main thing about it that I never did like was that it was not as effective as my XM-21 sniper rifle where 1 bullet would drop a bad guy.

Now get this this little piece of information. Robert McNamara and his assinine whiz kids were totally and completely WRONG. There is no such thing as one perfect rifle for every infantryman's needs. The average infantry squad NEEDS a variety of different firearms to cover a variety of different shooting situations. It is as simple as that. Different tools to do different jobs. How can a person, any reasonably sane person, expect a carpenter to build a house or building if he shows up with just a hammer? It won't happen. A carpenter needs a variety of tools to do different jobs and so do infantrymen. If this doesn't sound right, then why in the world don't we just arm ALL of our troops with nothing more than one kind of rifle and do completely away with grenade launchers, machineguns, pistols, flame throwers and so on? Come on, explain why all the other tools are needed for infantry combat but only one type of rifle???? On top of that, we need a decent caliber/size and weight rifle bullet with enough punch to get the job done. The 6.5 caliber bullets look to be good for what we need. So does the 6.8 SPC bullets. But more than anything, we also need submachineguns and good sniper rifles organic to all of our infantry squads. So we need a decent duty rifle, some good submachineguns, some reliable machineguns and some effective sniper rifles. We ought to just do it right and start all over with equipping our troops from the word "go." :cuss: :banghead:

mljdeckard
February 11, 2008, 09:11 PM
We have good submachine guns. We have reliable machine guns. We have the world's best sniper rifles. There is nothing wrong with our duty rifle. If you want to argue about the appropriate distribution of all of these, join the club of every soldier still in the army whose job it is to gripe about everything.

Not only is the current-issue M-16 a far different animal than the one you used in Vietnam, it's the most versatile, ergonomic, and user-friendly rifle we have ever used. Mine knocks people over just fine. The 6. whatever bullets don't give any clear advantage to the application of a shot-medium range select-fire rifle that the M-6 doesn't already have.

And there is no way I would be happy if the armorer god came down tomorrow and armed all the petite females in my squad with M-14s.

It is correct to say that the M-16 is not the appropriate rifle for most of our troops. The M-4 is. Those who have a legitimate use and mission for anything different get it.

icebones
February 11, 2008, 09:22 PM
yep, the rifle your think of is the new MK-16 SCAR-L, increadible rifle, if i could i would get my hands on one during my deployment. the US navy SEALS and USSOCOM have already apopted it.

as far as stopping power with the 5.56mm goes, i have personally droped deer in their tracks with it (hollow points rounds though) and with FMJ i have shot clean through a 1/2'' cast iron stove door. clean hole, looked like someone drilled through it. Any one heard of the BMT rounds LeMas developed, the rounds are called Blended Metal Rounds, simmilar to frangible rounds but they react to the target they hit according to temperature. if they hit something hard, lik steel or armor plate they heat up and pierce through, if they hit an organic target, they will literally "explode" inside the target, inflicting horrific wounds. I read a report from a "un named" US soldier currently employed with the iraq police. he hit an insurgent in the lower back with a BMT round from his m4 se said something like "he went down like somebody hit him with a sledgehammer" upon examining the downed enemy the entire lower abdomen was shreadded, this bmt round quickly and effectively took down the target, this is what we need.
Also, the US never signed the Geniva convention, also we are not fighting a country under a flag, so standard ammunition isnt required.

check out the review for this round
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=361

yet again politics at their best, seems like this round will never make into the hands of troops. too bad.

also imagine issueing both 5.56mm and 9x19mm rounds to troops, effectively "killing two birds with one stone"

Andrewsky
February 11, 2008, 10:12 PM
Not only is the current-issue M-16 a far different animal than the one you used in Vietnam,

Have there been reliability improvements to the firearm?

Eightball
February 11, 2008, 11:36 PM
plasma rifles? get real, unless you have a rail gun in you basement, i will stick to good old fashoned lead and powderYou accuse me of NOT having a rail gun in my basement? What kind of uncouth firearms enthusiast do you take me for?

I read a report from a "un named" US soldier currently employed with the iraq police. he hit an insurgent in the lower back with a BMT round from his m4 se said something like "he went down like somebody hit him with a sledgehammer" upon examining the downed enemy the entire lower abdomen was shreadded, this bmt round quickly and effectively took down the target, this is what we need.As has been stated previously, anecdote =/= report. I would wonder what CO and/or armorer would let a troop under their watch use non-standard ammunition of his own procuring in his rifle for a combat situation. If you can provide a link to this "report", then I"ll lend it some credibility.

Just as there is no "wonder rifle," there is no "wonder round." There are compromises in both departments--so make do with it. And adopting the 6."wonderrounds" won't solve all the problems--like the NATO supply lines. Indeed, it would complicate things, and sacrifice one aspect of the ballistics for another--another compromise.

As it sits, for all the complaints I've heard about the M16/AR family, a lot of them seem to come from internet fanboys, rather than guys who use them and whose life depends on them. There's a couple in every camp that break the mold, but generally speaking, this has been my observation. Most of the troops I've come in contact with enjoy the AR, and, as long as they follow their training, have no problems with it.

Just my .02.

Sergeant Sabre
February 12, 2008, 01:20 PM
Have there been reliability improvements to the firearm?

Yes

outofbattery
February 12, 2008, 01:52 PM
Funny,I just read House to House and the author makes the comment of the M-4 being the finest rifle in service today.He also sings the praises of the usefulness of the,albeit finicky,SAW.
OUTSTANDING book BTW: http://www.amazon.com/House-Soldiers-Memoir-David-Bellavia/dp/1416546979

MatthewVanitas
February 12, 2008, 02:09 PM
Any military that goes into battle without fielding a main battle rifle is lacking...

Exactly how many armies have main battle rifles today? So you're saying that the rest of the world's armies are wrong?

Ever notice that the vast majority of countries widely issued 7.62x51 (308) rifles are those who can't afford to buy new rifles for their troops?

Apparently, Iran and Pakistan are two of the only countries not "lacking" currently. Better hope we don't go up against them...

http://www.iribnews.ir/PhotoGallery/Photo/_82ffbf8a.jpg

icebones
February 12, 2008, 02:13 PM
ok because some people are so quick to shoot down comments made without the "seal of congress itself!!!" attached,
and so many people can call a report an "anecdote",

if you are not now, or ever have been a soldier in any branch of the military, dont act like you know combat.

here is the exact article envolving the use of BMT rounds by ex-Navy seal Ben Thomas, he was working for a private US company
"aka mercanaries, contractors whatever you prefer" simmilar to Blackwater USA.
here is the website with the article--- http://www.wlhoward.com/id618.htm

---Ben Thomas and three colleagues were driving north out of Baghdad in an SUV on a clear mid-September morning, headed down a dirt road into a rural village, when gunmen in several surrounding buildings opened fire on them. In a brief but intense firefight, Thomas hit one of the
attackers with a single shot from his M4 carbine at a distance he estimates was 100 to 110 yards.

He hit the man in the buttocks, a wound that typically is not fatal. But this round appeared to kill the assailant instantly. "It entered his butt and completely destroyed everything in the lower left section of his stomach ... everything was torn apart," Thomas said.

Thomas, a security consultant with a private company contracted by the government, recorded the first known enemy kill using a new - and controversial - bullet. The bullet is so controversial that if Thomas, a former SEAL, had been on active duty, he would have been court-martialed for using it. The ammunition is "nonstandard" and hasn't passed the military's approval process.---

I simply said "un named" solider because I couldnt think of his name at the time.

if you dont believe me now, well i cant help you,
instead of complaining about made up reports and dismissing reports as "anecdotes" actually search the net for BMT rounds used in combat.

i cant say that all "reports" are 100% true, I dont know about every one else but I aint going to make up something up, but then again how many times every day does the News and CNN twist around reports from the middle east? This thread was started to get everyone opinion on an ideal military rifle, not to shoot down other poeples posts.

then again i never said the m4 or the 5.56mm are bad things, i would rather have an m4 than an AK

dscottw88
February 12, 2008, 03:26 PM
Boy if I had a Nickle for every thread about the AR/5.56 not being "ideal" for our troops and us....

As a matter of fact, I believe there is a rifle that takes good from the AR platform and improves on it's faults. I'm looking forward to that ACR/Masada from magpul and bushmaster. Although, its not a bullpup it still looks promising.

mljdeckard
February 12, 2008, 08:25 PM
Other than a few tweaks, reliability improvements were never needed. Most of what was done to improve the reliability of the M-16 was to build it to the spec that Stoner designed it for.

icebones
February 12, 2008, 10:29 PM
let me remind everyone that i am asking for your personal opinion on the "ideal" rifle for the military, its true that AR have a few problems, but its also true that AK's and every other rifle on the face of the planet has problems too. No body's perfect, the same goes for rifles.

I get a little tired of people dismissing the m-16 because 40 years ago, politicians didnt think the troops needed cleaning kits. the AR-15 of today is one of the finest rifles made, that being said it does have flaws, but a good rifleman can work around these flaws, and adapt to them, just like i was trained, and like every other soldier was trained to adapt to any situation.

true i dont care much for the direct gas system, but thats the way it was designed, and it works. so what if an AK never needs to be cleaned, try to hit a man at 800 meters with an AK.

Quickill
February 12, 2008, 10:34 PM
try to hit a man at 800 meters with an AK

I try but the SOB keeps moving;)

icebones
February 12, 2008, 10:40 PM
the easiest way to improve the ar-15 in dusty/sand enviorments would be to install a hard chromed bolt and bolt carrier.

when the first m16s were fielded none of them had chrome lined chambers, combined with the wrong powder and the "never needs to be cleaned" crap the drill instructors gave to raw recruits, well we know the story.

later on they started producing rifles with chromed chambers, and started to issue cleaning kits, problem solved.

the main factor that would eventually cause a jam would be powder build-up around the bolt, gas rings, locking lugs and bolt carrier, hard chroming the parts here would also improve performance. just a suggestion

but then again if it aint broke, dont fix it...and the AR-15 aint broke. :banghead:

Matt-J2
February 12, 2008, 11:30 PM
try to hit a man at 800 meters with an AK.

Heck with that, try and see a man at 800m. Not a man size target out on the range, but a man, who may be moving at varying speeds, changing height, wearing clothing not designed to be seen at 800m, in an area not designed for clear viewing such as in the trees, or hanging around buildings. More often than not, by the time you see him, he won't be at 800m any more.

Zak Smith
February 13, 2008, 12:24 AM
I know this is a gun board, and we all like to talk about guns. However-- Training is more important than gear. Strategy and tactics are more important than gear. Political will is more important than gear.

Based on the designs and improvements over the last 40 years, the ideal fighting rifle looks more or less like an AR-15. It might have a piston swapped for the direct gas impingement, or it might have a folding/telescoping stock, or it might be a slightly different caliber than 5.56. In the scheme of things, the FN SCAR and the Magpul Masada/ACR, and the HK 416, are very similar in ergonomics, controls, layout, and general design. There are evolutionary design improvements, but the fundamentals are the same. IMO. YMMV.

Over the last 5-10 years, the military has finally started to understand what a force multiplier something as simple as a 4x optic (TA01/31) can be on a regular issue M16/M4.

james2133
February 13, 2008, 12:57 AM
After four years in the infantry I got out and bought a Rock River ar15/M4. The only problem I have ever had with this weapon system is not the rifle it is the magazines, the top of the mags will crack and butterfly causing a double feed….. not the rifles fault just crapy old mags used by the Army. However I also own a HK Sl8 which is similar inside but it is a piston blow back. I find that it stays much cleaner so id say just go to a piston. I do like the M4 and had no problems with it but I loved my M240B……..

Snipe315
February 13, 2008, 01:05 AM
Zak has the right idea.

After using an M16 for over a decade, the basic system is just fine.

A gas piston to replace the DI system would be nice.

Also changing to a better caliber like 6.5 Grendel wouldn't hurt either.

Short of a "phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range" those are the best realistic upgrades I can think of.

:evil:

H2O MAN
February 13, 2008, 01:18 AM
Based on the designs and improvements over the last 40 years, the ideal fighting rifle looks more or less like an AR-15. It might have a piston swapped for the direct gas impingement, or it might have a folding/telescoping stock, or it might be a slightly different caliber than 5.56. In the scheme of things, the FN SCAR and the Magpul Masada/ACR, and the HK 416, are very similar in ergonomics, controls, layout, and general design. There are evolutionary design improvements, but the fundamentals are the same. IMO. YMMV.

I agree.

The new evolution of small arms is basically a refined/modernized AR-15.
I like some of the features found only on the new evolution rifles, but they
were not enough to sway me away from buying myself a Colt LE 6920 :cool:

The M4 and longer barreled AR-15 in use today can be enhanced and go
on serving for many years just as the modernized M14 keeps on serving.

Two battle proven platforms that benefit greatly from modern enhancements.

C-grunt
February 13, 2008, 03:14 AM
Have you talked to "all the veterans" to prove such statements? I personally spoke to a vet at the range who had some very serious issues with his M-16 in Iraq. You see, the system does not like sand and dust. BTW, he was shooting an M1A at the range that day.

No I haven't talked to all the veterans but I did serve two tours in Iraq with the Army 3rd Infantry Division as a 11B. Including the invasion where we didn't have a FOB to clean our weapons at night. I also was in a fox hole when the super red dust storm hit. We quickly wiped down our weapons and got in a firefight later that day. I didn't see anyone's weapon jam then. As a matter of fact I can only remember a few times when I did see the M16 malfunction and most if not all of them were due to bad/broken magazines.

I did see more than one dead Iraqi soldier with a jammed old piece-o-crap AK47 with him. They are good weapons but DO actually require some maintenance.

In 05 I was a SDM with my nifty little SDM M16 rifle. The tank company my platoon was assigned to had the refurbished M14 SDM rifles. After our first range session they went to our battalion and got the M16 versions because my rifle would shoot circles around theirs.

I did like the M14s though as they are very nice and capable rifles. One of our squad leaders was able to finagle himself one and carried it without the scope. He stated it was for "extra barrier penetration" which I guess could have come in handy, but we never had any real lack of penetration issue with the ole' green tips.

As far as lethality goes, the only guy I ever saw take a good COM hit with a rifle and survive was with a 7.62. Took it through the upper right back and exited right about his left nipple and somehow didn't hit anything to vital. He survived but definitely wasn't fighting anymore.

Just my .02

556A2
February 13, 2008, 03:44 AM
The ideal rifle is the M16A4 or M4 Carbine with an optic on it.

All the GIs I'm related to, and I know personally never had problems with their M16 or M4.

H&K tends to have a problem with it because they want a juicy contract.

TimboKhan
February 13, 2008, 05:28 AM
I didn't read through this thread, so pardon me if this has been mentioned, but I had to respond to this:

---above all this new rifle will be 100% reliable in any condition, easy to use under stress, rugged, light weight, low maintenece, provide the troops with greater stopping power, simple in design and maintenence, and compact in size. also fast and easy to produce to reduce production costs and unit price. this rifle should cost less than $350-$450 to produce in materials and labor

It's a mechanical device. All mechanical devices will fail. It obviously uses ammunition. Ammunition will surely fail at some point. Whatever good ideas you had to start out with pretty much got immediately swept away, because this last idea is unrealistic, at best.

I should also hasten to add that I hauled around an M-16 during both Desert Storm and Operation Restore Hope in Somalia, and was perfectly satisfied with it's service. In Desert Storm, we were literally in the middle of the desert for four months, sleeping in holes in the ground, and I don't recall a single failure. Somalia was less sandy, but there was constant battles with rust because we were right next to the ocean. Again, no problems for me or anyone that I recall. Yes, you do have to maintain them, but that is true of any weapon ever fielded by an American military force in any climate. The old Cavalry saying "The Horse, The Saddle, The Man" is just as true today as it was when it was first uttered. Trust me, Zak pretty much got it right. The AR is about as modular a platform now as you could want from a rifle, and the military loves modularity. I really believe that the AR in one form or another is pretty much going to be it for American infantry rifles for a long, long time.

dr0
February 13, 2008, 11:05 PM
I should also hasten to add that I hauled around an M-16 during both Desert Storm and Operation Restore Hope in Somalia,

Thanks for your service. This name "operation restore hope", jeeze it just reeks of Clintonism at it's worst. Desert Storm is much better. I'd like "Operation Kick Ass" "Operation Desert Cleanse" "Operation No More Islam" and "Operation Cheap Oil". I guess I'm insensitive to political reality, but geeze. Didn't restoring hope end up with "Blackhawk Down"??

icebones
February 14, 2008, 09:12 PM
zak is on the right path, the most single significant improvement you can pu ton any AR rifle is a 4x ACOG weapon sight, it provides good magnification, but its not too powerful, and when combined with a throw-lever mount, it can be quickly taken off to mount reflex sights for close range.
Adding a magnified sighting system to an AR, (or any other accurate weapon for that matter) takes advantage of the weapons excellent accuracy, effectively extending its range several hundred meters, and improving its accuracy, compared to open sights, that is.

the simple fact is open sights arent meant for long range, and the human eye istn capable of focusing on targets at long range either...

How about this: a "care package" for troops, several of those top notch HK magazines, a chromed bolt, new otis cleaning kit and a 4x acog...
i know that is definately something i will self-purchase if it isnt issued to me before i ship out...

another thing is, if given the choice i will pick a M16A2 or A4 over an m4, its simply a matter of personal prefrence, the M16 has a 20'' barrel, compared to the M4 12.5'' the M16 develops much higher muzzle velocity and more stopping power, even if the m4 is lighter and more compact.

GunTech
February 15, 2008, 10:41 PM
This thing has been done to death. try the search function.

jpwilly
February 15, 2008, 10:57 PM
The .223/5.56 caliber rifle sucks. Actually I think the term is blows, vacuums suck!

This is from a Viet Nam veteran who never did like that little piece of crap. The Viet Nam era green berets were quite fond of the M16 + the rifles??

The average infantry squad NEEDS a variety of different firearms to cover a variety of different shooting situations. I totally agree a Designated Marksman and Squad Machine gun are needed...wait - already have them! Along with air support etc etc...

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