M16's Replacement?


PDA






BrokenButterfly
March 5, 2009, 02:48 PM
Is it true? I heard that the U.S. army is looking for something to replace the M16. I don't know what it would be but the M16 has been around for a long time.

If you enjoyed reading about "M16's Replacement?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jorg Nysgerrig
March 5, 2009, 02:52 PM
Oh, they've looked into it a couple of times. There was this one in the 80's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Combat_Rifle

Then there was a later deal with the XM8 and the like.

Jaws
March 5, 2009, 04:52 PM
With Obama looking to cut some 40 billions in goverment spending, I doubt you'll see a new rifle or a better round any time soon.

Bill2e
March 5, 2009, 05:11 PM
CMP Surplus M16's :D:D:D:D:D:D


Of course they would probally crush them like Klinto did with the M14's:fire::cuss::fire::cuss::banghead::banghead::banghead:

servantofinari
March 5, 2009, 08:55 PM
They have had two big trials, both went badly, but one did finnish with the SCAR being semi adopted. i vote for a bullpup in the end.

Matrix187
March 5, 2009, 09:53 PM
Not for awhile. Nothing out there is that much more effective than the M16/M4 platform to justify replacing every single gun in the military.

The SCAR is for the special forces only, and I couldn't see the military being able to replace all the m4s/m16's for quite a long time.

HorseSoldier
March 5, 2009, 11:32 PM
SOCOM sort of adopted the SCAR, though there were or are delays on fielding the weapon. My last unit was supposed to be getting them at three different dates over the course of the last couple years before I ETS'ed last fall. I've heard different stories on the delay.

Big Army announced a while back they'd be taking submissions for a replacement for the M16/M4, though I agree with the previous poster who suggested budget limits will prevent them acting on the idea any time soon.

messerist
March 6, 2009, 09:16 AM
IMHO I think the Military is "gun shy"(pardon the pun) when it comes to tackling the issue of a replacement. I remember back during the 80s when Army Times Soldier and Stars and Stripes were full of articles and photos about the new "Advance Combat Rifle." Recently there was another competition to choose a successor that came to naught. Is there no better firearm? Does the potential threat require a new system? I know that a lot of M14s and other off the shelf systems are showing up at the front to fill a void in lethality. Is the M16 fraternity too powerful? Should the Military choose a new weapon will it perform? I think that is the issue. They don't want a dud. Good topics for furthers threads.

The Deer Hunter
March 6, 2009, 09:23 AM
Is it true? I heard that the U.S. army is looking for something to replace the M16. I don't know what it would be but the M16 has been around for a long time.

I hear about some new rifle that "the military wants to test" to replace the M16 about every six months.

There was the XM8, which I guess failed, and then all the guns that everyone sees on Futureweapons, like the HK416, and thinks because it was on television means it's the new rifle. In my opinion, most of it's just hype.

IIRC, the military did do some testing on the M4 against a couple rifles including the HK416. I forget what came of it, if anything.

DocBoCook
March 6, 2009, 09:24 AM
Bill2E, one more reason to hate klinton. I loved that firearm while they still had a few left in service in the PacNorWest

servantofinari
March 6, 2009, 07:52 PM
There was the XM8, which I guess failed a glorified G36 that had a melting issue. by the time they fixes its little problems it was "too heavy" the idea of a assault rifle that weighs less than 7 pounds is just ridicules right now. Oh and just call it a G36a1 or something, don’t give it a new name just because its in a new body.

davidjblythe
March 6, 2009, 09:07 PM
The unit I just arrived at is still getting factory new M16-A4's. Most Marines I talk to tell me that they saw the armorer remove the new weapon from the wrapper when they got it issued to them. We are still de-issuing the M16-A2s...

everallm
March 6, 2009, 10:13 PM
The issue with replacement is not just the weapon but everything else that goes with it in the supply chain from ammunition, magazines, cleaning kits, training, BFA's and MILES etc etc etc.

One major problem is that there is huge inertia in procurement and people rarely get marked down on their fitness reports for not taking the initiative on this.........

Take all the lessons learned from EVERYONE not just in one area, throw out the assumptions and received wisdom THEN design.

There really needs to be a top to tail review starting from the ground up with caliber, velocity,ergonomics, optics etc etc unfortunately, the last time a real soup to nuts was done was with the EM-2 and look what happened there.

W.E.G.
March 6, 2009, 11:07 PM
If anybody knew what they were doing, they'd bring back the M-14.

Now THAT is a real rifle.

TRGRHPY
March 6, 2009, 11:18 PM
Not sure on the details, but I think that they're waiting to see how the scar develops since the platform takes care of 2 calibers.

servantofinari
March 6, 2009, 11:45 PM
If anybody knew what they were doing, they'd bring back the M-14 One, its round is overkill, we should go to 6.5 Grendel. The M-14 is still used as a DM rifle. Its a good gun, but it's not what we need in the hands of "every" soldier.

rangerruck
March 7, 2009, 12:34 AM
they have been looking for it's replacement since about 1967. Still around. the only improvements I see, is to make it totally modular, with the ability to go to a diff, heavier round, with only changing the bbl. all other things continue to work; bolt, bolt face, mags, everything. Something that will have to be very close to a Grendel. and the bbl needs to be changed , without tools. Also , this will have to work, without a gas impingement system, they are going to have to perfect the piston. then we will get a change.
Last but not least, a totally waterproof , inclosed, easy to change out trigger pac, that can be exchanged from what it is now, to electronic trigger, and it needs to be able to be changed, without tools, in the field, by the leg or airborne, that is carrying an extra trigger pac on him.

RevolvingCylinder
March 7, 2009, 12:43 AM
Not for awhile. Nothing out there is that much more effective than the M16/M4 platform to justify replacing every single gun in the military.

The SCAR is for the special forces only, and I couldn't see the military being able to replace all the m4s/m16's for quite a long time.
That pretty much sums it up. When they come up with something actually new and actually improved like Armalite's rifle then we can start talking about replacement. Putting the same old pre-60s technology into a plastic case does not make it new. I'd personally like to see something new and innovative instead of the same old cookie cutter stuff. That goes for pistols too. Just because everyone else is doing it does not make it the end-all. If that were the case we'd still be debating the best spear to equip our army. We really don't need to waste our money on old technology when that money could be spent transitioning to actual new technology in the near future.

RevolvingCylinder
March 7, 2009, 12:48 AM
bbl needs to be changed , without tools.
Does not benefit the average soldier.
Also , this will have to work, without a gas impingement system
Why would it "have to" take a step back in the development of our infantry rifle? The M16/M4 series is one of the most reliable weapons in our inventory right now. More so than our gas piston-utilizing machine guns.

I can't make sense of the electronic "trigger pac" concept of yours. What would it offer other than drastically reduced reliability in the field?

06
March 7, 2009, 01:01 AM
My truck gun is an M1-A. If I have to shoot I want something that I like using and that I have total confidence in. My M4 stays in the safe, wc

THE MACHINIST
March 7, 2009, 01:08 AM
The 6.8 mm Remington SPC (or 6.8x43mm) were keeping the ar frame but changing the cartrige its being used in afganistan right now by elite groups.

elmerfudd
March 7, 2009, 01:32 AM
One, its round is overkill, we should go to 6.5 Grendel.

The main selling point of the 6.5 Grendel is that it can fit in a magwell originally intended for a 5.56 cartridge. That makes fairly good sense if you want to just switch uppers and keep the AR platform, but if you intend on going to something new why use a cartridge limited by the magwell dimensions of a rifle you're replacing?

If you make the magwell longer or wider then you could go with a much better cartridge.

bkb0000
March 7, 2009, 01:37 AM
not sure if anyone mentioned this, but the 5.56 is the NATO round. we're not going to a different caliber until NATO does.

the 6.5 has phenominal ballistics, but nobody's got anything that shoots it cept some US civilian manufacturers, as far as I know.

to the bullpup question- it's great for constipation, but nobody's keen on having the chamber under his cheek. An OBD on a bullpup could kill you.

KevinAbbeyTech
March 7, 2009, 02:20 AM
When they do replace it, I would imagine that they would go with a completely modular weapons system.

Something like a Magpul Masada/Bushmaster ARC.

CapnMac
March 7, 2009, 03:39 AM
to the bullpup question- it's great for constipation, but nobody's keen on having the chamber under his cheek.
Which did not stop the Brits, Austrians, French, & Aussies from adopting at least one. Ok, so the Brits adopted a dog, but they are sticking with that dog even if it won't shoot weak hand at all.

le Clarion has held up in some right hostile places and without being babied by armorers every day.

A top-load, bottom-eject bullpup using a telescoped round in the 6.5-7mm range would have a lot to recommend it. Sadly, US law prevents a would-be "Carbine Williams" from really making that leap. Which leaves innovation in the hands of inertia-laden big companies.

noob_shooter
March 7, 2009, 04:38 AM
why not just use the AR-10 in .308?

Jaws
March 7, 2009, 05:41 PM
If i remember corectly, after some people were talking more seriously about replacing the Ar15's, with Colt's contract expiring this year, few weeks before Bush left office, some connected people managed to squize through Congress a contract for over half a million M4's.:barf:
That just about sealed the deal on any new rifle.:mad:

Colt guys made sure nobody could justify a new rifle, with so many factory new M4's out there.

All the requirements put on the new rifles they tested at one time or another, made sure that is impossible for the new product to be much better the the curent issueed rifles. They had to use m4 mags, they had to fire the 5.56, they had to have to look as close to M16 as possible so you don't have to retrain the troops, have to weight no more then M4, and on, and on.

Then I see people saying " this newer rifles anre not much beter then an M4".

How could they? The requirements made sure they can't!!!!

Is like trying to replace your old Pentium4 computer with something that have to use the same mother board, same memory that the old mother board can take, and you wonder how come you only get a slight performance increase over the old dog.

With new platrorms that are designed from get go to handle multiple calibers, like SCAR, XCR, ACR, you would have a very good chance to get rid of both the ar15 shortcomings and marginal capabilities of the round curently used.
The nice thing about this new platforms is that you don't have to change everything in one shot if you don't want, or you can't afford it. Get them adopted now in 5.56 and when you decide to upgrade the caliber, you can actually choose a caliber based on performance and not on limitations of the old platform.
With this platforms you could actually introduced that 7mm ideal round that many people proposed time and time again, and skip the 6.5 grendel and 6.8 special, wich are both choked by the same AR15 limitations.

I'd love a SCAR17S, or ACR converted to 7x46mm Murray. :p

servantofinari
March 7, 2009, 07:42 PM
To everyone above who is talking about bullpups, look at the FN F2000, best bullpup ever. Now, for the 6.8 Rem vs the 6.5 Grendel, the Grendel has better ballistics and carries its energy better. As for the guy who was complaining about the gas system, go for the Roller delay system, the G3 was more reliable than the AK 47, and packed more punch.

PRE 64 JOE
March 7, 2009, 09:55 PM
700 nitro express ? :evil:

mljdeckard
March 7, 2009, 10:24 PM
Remember, we spent years talking NATO into standardizing the 7.62 as the rifle round, and then immediately left them behind for the 5.56. It took decades for all NATO members to adopt 5.56 rifles. If we want to use a new round, we will tell NATO to pound sand or joins us. We did it before, we'll do it again.

The idea of resupplying a rifle like the M-14 as a general-use rifle for all troops is ridiculous. From personal experience, I can assure you, there is a LOT more to learning how to run an M-14 well than an M-16. Not just for petite-framed females either. I just finished warrior leadership course with a 20-year-old female who weighed about 105. An M-14 is as big as she is. She is a very good soldier with whom I would go to war tomorrow.

I'm not planning on seeing a rifle other than the M-16/M-4 before I retire. MAYBE a SCAR or some flavor or other of designated marksman rifle, but the bottom line is, there has never been a rifle in the U.S. army that worked as well for as many soldiers for as many years as the M-16 series. Keep it clean, it will do its job. Don't like the performance of the round? Shoot everything more than once. Two or three hits from a medium-powered round is better than zero hits from a rifle too heavy for most people to learn to use correctly.

The 6.8 fizzled. The trials found that its terminal performance wasn't really all that great, and it hammered the existing lowers it was bolted to. The Grendel might be much better, but it's being choked right now because Alexander Arms isn't allowing it to be embraced by the public, and they are just waiting for the military to snatch it up, which they don't seem inclined to do.

Like someone else said, they have been thinking about replacing the M-16 for about 40 years now. I'm not planning on any big changes anytime soon.

HorseSoldier
March 7, 2009, 11:29 PM
The 6.8 mm Remington SPC (or 6.8x43mm) were keeping the ar frame but changing the cartrige its being used in afganistan right now by elite groups.

It was combat tested downrange several years ago, but that was the end of it. SOCOM didn't have the money to support the logistics of a go-it-alone caliber that would cut them off from Big Army, USMC, and everyone else's logistics coat tails, and so opted for more sniper/DMR kind of rifles and 77 grain 5.56mm.

6.8SPC is a dead issue at the moment even within elite units (though having not been a dead issue at one time, it has done better militarily speaking, than Grendel), and that doesn't appear likely to change any time soon.

If you enjoyed reading about "M16's Replacement?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!