Think the AR-15 is dying?

[MechAg94]

If German infantry effectiveness was higher, I am thinking it had more to do with the following than using 8mm.
1. They fought on the defensive after 1942 holding some pretty tough ground to attack.
2. At the beginning, most every other nation was not prepared for the war in terms of training, tactics, and often equipment.
3. The Russians were less interested in combat efficiency.
4. The Germans also started the war with more crew served machine guns per unit than most other armies if I am not mistaken.

 

[Byron Quick]

I used to be of 7.62X51 persuasion. Still am in some circumstances. As in I'm in motorized transport as well as my logistics train. Open territory with 300+ meter ranges common.

However, if my ammunition transport consists of my aching feet and resupply is who knows when...the ability to carry more rounds for the same weight begins looking attractive.

If the terrain is such that ranges are limited, then the ability to get the next shot off just a little faster due to lower recoil begins to look good too.

In the best of all worlds, I'd have two weapons-one in each caliber that I could change if I was walking or riding or in open country or not. However, in the real world I happen to be in with the rest of you, that would be a logistical nightmare that would probably result in snafus in every direction.

Tell you what, you want the 7.62X51, go saddle up. Put on a helmet, body armor, water, and ruck sack and then go on a twenty mile march in the summer heat. At the furthest point, prior to the return twenty mile march, you'll be given a choice: M-16 with 8 30 round magazines or a M-14 with 12 -20 round magazines. Things will start to look very, very different.

I shot expert with the M-16 way too long back. I've several 7.62 Nato rifles. I'm still a fair shot within the limits of older eyes. If I've a target rich environment inside of 300 meters...give me a M-16 in 5.56mm. Even if a 7.62 NATO upper is available.

 

[444]

"Yes the idea behind the smaller caliber or so I have heard is to inflict injury not death. Leaving your enemy with wounded to tend too severly hinders them on the battlefield. "

I have a good shooting buddy who spent his teenage years under Russian communism. He later defected and served in the US Army. He gets a big laugh out of this theory. He knows from personal experience that the Russians (as an example) don't give a damn about their wounded soldiers. Nobody is going to stop and evacuate the wounded. If they can't keep up, they are left behind.

 

[EvisceratorSrB]

"Flanking attacks and fire and manuever predate the 5.56mm round by quite a while. They were, for instance, a central part of infantry doctrine for US forces in World War 2, explain why weapons like the BAR were adopted, etc." -Horsesoldier

That's a very good point. The BAR probably wasn't cutting it in terms of RPM and accuracy on the battlefield. The recoil (I've never shot one), I'm just speculating, undeployed, was probably horrific. Granted, one of those rounds will cut you in half, however, all you need is a few pieces of lead to keep someone's head down. They realized this shoot and flank tactic long before they knew how to implement it as effectively as shooting a small caliber HV round.

 

[The-Fly]

Guy i shoot occasionally with is army reserve, and has been in the sand box a fair amount in recent years in active combat. We both own AR's, and one day i asked him flat out what his opinion was on the AR/M16 type platform, and how reliable he felt it was in combat zones. His 2 cents was that as long as you kept it reasonably cleaned, and didn't use absolute crap ammo, it was a great platform. He had confidence in his M16A4, and said the ammo they had in Iraq worked well enough within 200 yards or so regarding "knock down" power. Longer shots were usually taken care of by a marksman or sniper, or crew served weapon.

 

[MechAg94]

I have never shot a BAR either, but I thought I had heard the recoil wasn't too bad since the rifle was so heavy. I did see a testimonial from a guy who said in Korea they loaded them with AP ammo only and they worked great for tear though obstacles/cover.

 

[Dienekes]

Number 6:

Source is "Fighting Power" by Martin Van Creveld, Greenwood Press, 1980. The key was better training, motivation, and leadership, stemming from reform in military circles that begin back in the 1870s.

A real eye-opener.

 

[Number 6]

Thank you Dienekes, I will definitely look that up.

 

[pcf]

"Yes the idea behind the smaller caliber or so I have heard is to inflict injury not death. Leaving your enemy with wounded to tend too severly hinders them on the battlefield. "

is a distortion of "shoot for the knees and ankles" which is alot easier than trying to explain that if you shoot for the enemies' chest and head, he will crawl close to you and throw hand grenades.

 

[MountainBear]

Not to beat a dead horse in agreeing with above postings, but the versatility of the system will keep it around for years. Not only is the upper changable to all kinds of options, but the lower is becoming that way as well.
In a standard lower, you can use the 6.somethings (i think these fit regular lower mag wells), pistol calibers (with mag well adapters), .50 beowulf, and the classic .223.
Add to this the new system that Cobb Manufacturing is working on that allows users to change to all sorts of calibers (including the beloved 7.62x51), and the versatility just keeps improving.
The only other complaint other than the caliber seems to be the direct gas system. Avoiding the lecture on just keeping your weapons clean, that has been addressed with the gas piston uppers that have begun to emerge.

On a side note, has anyone seen the weight specs on the new SCAR, and how do they compare to the M4's and M16A2's now in service?

 

[Crosshair]

/Not touchin this one.

 

[HMMurdock]

Crosshair is a very, very smart man

These gas piston uppers... this threat is my first encounter with hearing about these. Isn't that what the Hk 416 utilizes? Can you switch any AR-15 to this system? How reliable is it?

Thanks.

TRL

 

[DMK]

Can you switch any AR-15 to this system? How reliable is it?

You can certainly swap complete uppers.

 

[10-Ring]

I think there will refinements to the AR for the forseeable future...so, I think it will be around for a while!

 

[ozarkhillbilly]

The M-16 will be around for general army use until the mid to end of the next all out major war, WWIII. Until the major powers are fighting for their lives again you won't see a major improvement in weapons. The M-16 does to good of a job to replace it or to spend the money to come up with something alot better, so we will not change until we have too.

However I could see a M-16 in one of the new calibers 6.8 ect... but it will still be an M-16.

 

[mmike87]

I think the AR-15 is a fine platform overall. Why not just update the existing platform?

1) Piston operated
2) 6.5 or 6.8mm ammo
3) Heavier duty adjustable stock perhaps - I like my ACE stocks

What other perceived flaws are there? Why do we need a whole new rifle to fix the issues? By updating the current platform we maintain a lot of parts compatability, re-use existing logisticss infrastructure, utilize existing U.S. expertise on a mature weapons platform, maintain accessory compatibility (mostly) and more.

 

[Foxtrot427]

I think piston uppers will come round and the AR will be around for a while longer.

 

[HMMurdock]

Piston Uppers... $1000 for a base line? How about reliability?

Thanks guys.

TRL

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

In WWII the German soldier was usually about 1.3 times more effective than his Allied counterpart, and his personal weapon was a bolt action Mauser.

Someone will have to look that up, but as I recall, the figure was on a unit basis, and I don't think it was the bolt-action Mauser that made the Germans so much better.

Researchers during the war (SLA Marshall, notably) found that only about 20% of troops in combat even fired their personal weapons at all,

Marshall was a fraud, and I believe those figures are now seen as bogus.

 

[Metapotent]

I don't think that the M16/M4 will be going anywhere in the near future, nor will the 5.56/.223 nato round.

The weapon and cartridge were designed for large wars of attrition and has proven itself more effective than 7.62X39 and 7.62 NATO-chambered weapons in large wars where the object is to wear down your enemy.

I remember reading that in in maneuver warfare, the average 9-man squad armed with AR-15s is more effective than a 15-man squad with AKS, and more effective than a 60-man platoon armed with battle rifles chambered in high powered 7.62 NATO. Higher volume of fire, more accurate rapid fire, and more ammo can be transported.

But the thing is, we are not fighting a conventional war as we speak, and there have been many reports of the M4 coupled with 5.56 just not cutting it. But these reports have also been contradicted by an equal amount of accounts from troops that the 5.56 has been adequate to deal with insurgents in iraq and afghanistan.

Our military is already dealing with this. Many units in both the Army and Marine corps are being issued one M14 per squad and this has seemed to improve the situation. I've also read that special forces units are being given m4s chambered in 6.8 SPC and have come to the conclusion that the 6.8 represents the best of both worlds (5.56 and 7.62 nato) in terms of accuracy, low recoil, accurate high volume fire and long range punch.

So maybe the 5.56 and and ar-15 family of rifles won't be replaced, but be complimented with a wider arrange of other weapons per squad. But then again that might cause logistic problems.

Who knows...but what we can be sure of is that the ar-15 isn't going anywhere in the NEAR future...maybe 10 years from now our military's general issue rifle will be a rail gun...

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I used to think the .223 seemed like a puny round and the AR gas impingement an odd system until I got one and started using it. Now I'm a fan. I don't know about ballistics, but I do know that I made a huge mistake when I thought my handgun spinner target, which is supposed to be able to withstand everything up to a .44 magnum, would be strong enough for an AR. I was wrong. The FMJ round punched through half-inch steel plate like it was aluminum foil.

The military will probably replace the M4 at some point for whatever reason, but I know that if the S hits the F, mine will never be more than an arms length away from me.

 

[mmike87]

Piston Uppers... $1000 for a base line? How about reliability?

The government would certainly get a better price in quantity. So far, reliability reports seem overly positive from what I have read, with the guns being much more resistant to dirt and debris that their direct impingement counterparts - albeit at the cost of slightly more complexity.

The FMJ round punched through half-inch steel plate like it was aluminum foil.

Don't confuse this with hitting soft tissue. It's how much tissue the round tears up that decides how much damage a round does. Generally, the bigger hole, the better - provided penetration is adequate. A round that goes straight through making only a small hole is less preferable than one that may be somewhat slower, but makes a much larger hole, thus tearing up more tissue.

Consider that most pistol rounds penetrate more than .45 ACP FMJ rounds ... yet the sheer diameter of the .45 makes it a good people killer all-around. The hole is just bigger. Speed is important, but it's certainly not the only factor - and probably slightly less of a factor when shooting people.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Our military is already dealing with this. Many units in both the Army and Marine corps are being issued one M14 per squad and this has seemed to improve the situation. I've also read that special forces units are being given m4s chambered in 6.8 SPC and have come to the conclusion that the 6.8 represents the best of both worlds (5.56 and 7.62 nato) in terms of accuracy, low recoil, accurate high volume fire and long range punch.

Actually, field/combat trials were done with 6.8 Rem SPC, and the decision was made to drop the program based on the findings -- 5.56mm gets the job done at typical battlefield ranges, and issue of 7.62mm SR-25s and 5.56mm SPRs shooting Mk 262 ammo pretty much addressed the same issues 6.8mm was supposed to fix. (The perceived problem was not CQB range lethality of 5.56mm, but terminal ballistics at 2-400 meters with 5.56mm from a 14.5" or shorter barrel.)

 

[Kymasabe]

Long service life? What about Mosins...used from 1891 into the 50's. Isn't AK-47 in longer service than m-16?

 

[Crosshair]

Long service life? What about Mosins...

What about the good old 7.62x54R.

/OK, I lied, I'm gona touch this one.