How long will the m16/m4 last?

Until they wear out or something comes along that is a Big leap forward in tech.

I don't think the basic platform will change, but the M4 of today is a pretty far cry from the M16-A1 of Vietnam, at least in terms of versatility. Why change what works? Oh, people will complain about caliber, and that might change eventually, but caliber change won't mean platform change. The military loves modularity, man.

M16/M4 are good weapons. They are here to stay. Re-arming an entire military is very expensive. Thus, as some one mentioned, unless there is a dramtic improvement technologically, M16/M4 will stay. There only problem is dust, other then that they fire smoother than most of their competitors.

I think we will see the M16/M4 pattern rifles staying on for a long time. The military has no real reason to change out what all their troops are currently very familiar with nor do they need to spend the money on it. I'd say more than 40 years of battle proven service is reason enough to keep it around. Perhaps we might see a new gas piston upper if they decide to adopt a new cartride on a wide scale, but I don't think it will happen.

I'll be waiting for directed energy weapons.

Look at the current crop of electronic paintball markers.
It's not going to be long before someone fits an E-Trigger frame to an FAL rifle... something along those lines. Digital trigger control instead of mechanical. Combine that with electrical primers and you have some seriously interesting possibilities.
Remington had their electric primer rifles in 2000 and they pimped the speed in locktime as being the greatest thing in the world. And it is an improvement. Unfortunately the whole thing was a flash in the pan commercially... but that doesn't mean it was a bad idea. It just wasn't ready to roll in a bolt action hunting rifle.
Now put that system together in an automatic and give it to some door kicking grunts and let them play with it... make it something more potent than the .223....
Say a .260 Remington...

I would take two please.

Click to expand...

I used to spend quite a bit of money on electronic paintball markers. I had a NYX Matrix (spent $1300 on it), a Shocker 2003 (spent $700 on it), and a cave rat impulse ($550)

I also used to have mechanical guns. You could only achieve so many rounds per second on a mechanical or try to simulate full automatic with a mechnical paintball marker generally with a response trigger (if you held the trigger with enough pressure it would bounce the trigger forward).

The electronic paintball guns were interesting how they worked, they had a circuit board with a chip on it programmed with how many rounds per second you would fire and the response time. They were generally powered by a regular battery, only problem was that paintball guns were the most reliable in terms of firing, there were plenty of times where the gun would be firing too fast and a paintball would get caught between the bolt and break in your marker creating a mess. Some of the manufacturers tried to eliminate this with technology called a "Eye", an Eye was just a small hole inside the chamber which would detect when a paintball was present and then allow the bolt to engage.

While this works great for paintball, I'd really be very concerned if we were using technology like this in firearms, I will agree that electronic technology, there is so much you can do but the reliability is what concerns me.

In the 80's the German perfected caseless technology. They were all set to replace all their cartridge battle rifles with the HK G11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_G11 But those darn Commies went bankrupt instead of invading, reunification cost Billions of Deuschmarks, and then there were all these free East German AK47’s.

The powers that be decided that caseless was not a big enough improvement to offset the Dueschmarks spent, HK went bust and was bought by the British.

We have so many M16’s in inventory, we ain’t going to change until “Death rays” or “Lightsabers” are standard issue.

Hmmm, I am going to go against the flow here. I think the M4 is on its last legs, not design-wise but politically. The recent dust test will provide a wedge for FN, HK and others to push their products.

I also expect to see Cerebus get in on that game. I am guessing that they didn't buy Bushmaster, Marlin, Cobb, Remington and DPMS because they thought that American shooters were going to start buying a bunch of ARs. They clearly are planning on government contracts and Bushmaster's recent licensing of the Masada gives them a SCAR-equivalent rifle. Combine that with some of the personal connections that Cerebus investors have and the pressure from FN and HK to replace the M4 and I think you'll see a new rifle in the next 10 years.

Feel free to show me a differing opinion, but I always thought that blowing hot dirty gases into the action of an automatic rifle as a means of cylcing rounds was a horribly stupid idea. That opinion still stands.
It may make things lighter and more manageable, but it's dumb, dirty and is a breeding ground for failure and malfunction.
But hey, what do I know, mechanical engineering is only my hobby.
The M4/16 platform is a great start for improvement.
And that's how it started, so all we need to do
is improve the parts that need changing, not just put more
rails on it.

Chrome lining is treating the symptoms, not the cause.

"Feel free to show me a differing opinion, but I always thought that blowing hot dirty gases into the action of an automatic rifle as a means of cylcing rounds was a horribly stupid idea. That opinion still stands.
It may make things lighter and more manageable, but it's dumb, dirty and is a breeding ground for failure and malfunction.
But hey, what do I know, mechanical engineering is only my hobby.
The M4/16 platform is a great start for improvement.
And that's how it started, so all we need to do
is improve the parts that need changing, not just put more
rails on it.

Chrome lining is treating the symptoms, not the cause."

DI: The alternative is to hang a hunk of reciprocating steel off the barrel somehow. We (my wife and I) own 1 rifle that shoots MOA like clockwork (usually chromed bore and ammo I buy by the 1k lot) and it's not worked by a gas piston.

As far as DI being dirty, yes it is. I will wager a good sum that Stoner system rifles usually quit working because of external dirt and not because of powder fouling. Hanging a piston on a Stoner system rifle isn't going to change the close fit of the bolt/ bolt carrier/ and receiver.

Chroming the bore and chamber cures the cause of rifle jams that killed people in Viet Nam. The chambers would rust, causing pitting. The brass would hang up in the pits, causing jamming. Chrome was speced by Stoner in his design, but was left out of the M16 by the Army. Much the same way that the Army accepted ball powder (recycled by Winchester with the addition of calcium carbonate) in place of the IMR powder the Stoner speced. Adding what is essentially chalk to the DI gas system was a very bad idea.

As a interim weapon, we'll probably get something like the G36, Galil or another AK dressed up with better ergonomics. The AN-94 http://world.guns.ru/assault/as08-e.htm seems to be implementing some of the ideas from Project Salvo, but we will need caseless ammo that works before we can get there.

The other alternative is to shift doctrine back to a heavier cartridge (with all those problems) fired from a rifle that is almost always fired semiauto. BSW

why not just revise the DI system with a little vented piston?
Would that not cut out the problem of natural buildup of powders?
I'm not saying that foreign debris don't jam the rifle, but that is only a supplementary problem to the uncleanliness of the DI system.
They are great bench shooters, but in the dirt and grime of the combat
situation they fail. And there are testaments from soldiers showing that.
Without an obsessive cleaning the rifle endagers the operator, because they rely on the rifle to shoot when the trigger is pulled.
The gas piston does not have to be heavy, this is an advanced age, I'm sure there is an advanced solution to this problem.

I don't see the M16/AR15 going anywhere anytime soon. However, I do see the AR10 becoming more popular for compensating the weak long-range ballistics of the 5.56 NATO. It is hard to beat to beat the 5.56 in CQ urban combat though. As the world becomes less rural and more urban, so the need for such a weapon will grow.

rifles are cheap. we've replaced them all twice since the first m-16(a1, a2, a4/m4). buying a new rifle for every soldier in the military is not even a noticeable drop in the bucket of defense spending. price is not an issue, especially if using the same cartridges.

i've seen a couple of tank parts in the bin that cost more than the whole of what that purchase would cost.

They are great bench shooters, but in the dirt and grime of the combat situation they fail.

Click to expand...

Don't you think your statement is perhaps a little bit overinclusive? In the recent tests, the M4s ran above 99% function for 600 rounds with no cleaning. See this pictures for an example of "dirt and grime":



After 3,500 rounds of this treatment, the M4 began to fail much more often than the other rifles in the test; but still finished with a 98.6% reliability rate after 6,000 rounds x 10 rifles. That isn't as good as the gas piston rifles in the test (most of which probably had better reliability due to a new magazine than a gas piston; but that is another argument); but it is a damn long way from "in the dirt and grime of combat they fail" or "without an obsessive cleaning."

Seriously, there is so much information on this subject here. Why do we end up stomping out the same ridiculous misinformation (AKs can't hit the broadside of a barn/ Rifles are too dangerous for home defense/ M16s require obsessive cleaning to work) when a search would easily address these issues and let us have an informed discussion about something new for a change?

Not likely the .223 is ment to be used with a 3rd burst and gets the job done. I could forsee a replacement for the M14's the designated marksman use. Perhaps an AR 10 would be an adequet substitute. The biggest issue is ammo type restrictions. If we could use JHP or HP in .223 at those bullets velocities it would be amazing.

I'm going to jump in with a few thoughts:

1. We'll probably slowly upgrade our M-16s over time. Maybe add 6.5 or 6.8 uppers, probably add gas pistons, etc. Unless we're shooting opponents who have armor or heavy cover, even the .223 is probably enough most of the time, especially if you've got a SAW or two in your team.

2. New materials might help somewhat in both weapon manufacture and ammunition. For instance, a breakthrough in "cultured diamond" technology might allow for sturdier weapons and better-piercing ammo. Similarly, I was reading about an extremely strong but lightweight gel a few months ago.

3. In line with #2, I'm thinking that the pendulum may be swinging back toward "armor" from "arms." While laser shields are surely a ways off, stronger-and-lighter materials that can allow an individual soldier to better withstand an enemy assault may allow them the soldier to make better use of his weapon.

4. I wouldn't be surprised if the use of drones, or even robots, increases. Something like a squad-based or radio-ordered mini-Predator could surely do a lot of damage.

It will last as long as it lasts, and not one day more.

Hmmm, I am going to go against the flow here. I think the M4 is on its last legs, not design-wise but politically. The recent dust test will provide a wedge for FN, HK and others to push their products.

I also expect to see Cerebus get in on that game. I am guessing that they didn't buy Bushmaster, Marlin, Cobb, Remington and DPMS because they thought that American shooters were going to start buying a bunch of ARs. They clearly are planning on government contracts and Bushmaster's recent licensing of the Masada gives them a SCAR-equivalent rifle. Combine that with some of the personal connections that Cerebus investors have and the pressure from FN and HK to replace the M4 and I think you'll see a new rifle in the next 10 years.

Click to expand...

I feel like there's probably more pressure on them to look at armor than rifles, but you're right that the money is there for rifle manufacturers to get heard.

rifles are a perfected technology because the next step up are lasers and railguns.

Click to expand...

speaking of railguns.... http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080201/sc_livescience/navytestsincrediblescifiweapon

they go KABOOM

I don't see the army replacing the m4/m16 any time soon.

speaking of railguns.... http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...blescifiweapon

Click to expand...

That link as been posted everywhere from Ford Truck Forums to Gunboards. The video in the link doesn't even show a rail gun but instead shows a conventional howitzer being fired

I don't think it will ever get upgraded because we fight most of our battles by hiding as soon as we get shot at.

Then we call in Air strikes.

In other words, the days of the rifle man are over. We fight with high explosives and technology now.

walking arsenal said:

I don't think it will ever get upgraded because we fight most of our battles by hiding as soon as we get shot at.

Then we call in Air strikes.

In other words, the days of the rifle man are over. We fight with high explosives and technology now.

Click to expand...

I won't flame you, or pick a fight, but you are wrong... I hope you are kidding.

There's nothing wrong with the M16M4, M16M4A1 or the M16A4... just think of how many booger eaters have been killed with 5.56mm, hmmm. What some units and personel lack is proper training.

It's going to be awhile before the old Stoner Rifle is phased out of the US Military... just like the AK47, it will live on forever in someones Army.

Like others have said....Its about the ammo.

If caseless ammo is perfected, then a new gun will follow.

No case= cheaper ammo
Less moving parts= cheaper gun with less problems.

Its all about cheaper.

Seriously, there is so much information on this subject here. Why do we end up stomping out the same ridiculous misinformation (AKs can't hit the broadside of a barn/ Rifles are too dangerous for home defense/ M16s require obsessive cleaning to work) when a search would easily address these issues and let us have an informed discussion about something new for a change?

Click to expand...

Amen to that. I even find myself buying into the fallacy that the AR is less reliable under grit from time to time, and I know better! My M-16A2 functioned just fine in Desert Storm, and functioned just fine in Somalia even though the constant exposure to sea air where we were meant that by the end of the day it had a nice coating of rust all over it.

Originally Posted by walking arsenal

I don't think it will ever get upgraded because we fight most of our battles by hiding as soon as we get shot at.

Then we call in Air strikes.

In other words, the days of the rifle man are over. We fight with high explosives and technology now.

Click to expand...

I won't flame you, or pick a fight, but you are wrong... I hope you are kidding.

There's nothing wrong with the M16M4, M16M4A1 or the M16A4... What some units and personel lack is proper training.

Click to expand...

There is a hint of truth there. We don't fight the same way we used to, going in guns a blazing. That is after all stupid and gets people killed. Wait on the bird and your troubles may be over before they really get started. We still have the M16/4 because there is nothing That much better out there for a decent price. They still work 99% of the time and do the job. So what if HK supergun works 99.9% of the time? If it costs twice as much it may not be worth it.