Anyone know the name of the new gun that's supposed to be replacing the M16?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If that were possible, we would have been buying semi auto conversions of the BAR, M-2 Carbines, Thompson, Grease Gun, M-14s, etc. for years now.
did I read this wrong or miss the sarcasm. we can buy all of those and have been for years. i'm not the sharpest tool so maybe I missed something.
Click to expand...

I know it is tough, but remember back when the the poster mentioned the CMP? The CMP sells mainly military issued surplus. Those others are not military surplus.

Plus he asked about changing them to semi-auto.

Repeat after me, once a machine gun, always a machine gun.

No more new machine guns for the unwashed masses...................



:neener:
 
There are a lot of companies trying to put out some kind of "Do-It-All" type of rifle. XCR, ACR or Masada, HK416, FN SCAR. Personally, of all mentioned, I feel the ACR looks most promising. However, I dont believe the military will adopt any other type of rifle any time soon.

Probably the FN SCAR. it will be like a swiss army knife, switching uppers depending on the mission.
Click to expand...

Thats funny, I have four AR15s that can all switch out uppers too. BTW, welcome to THR.
 
We don't switch uppers depending on the mission for us non Spec Ops types. And the Spec Ops type on my installation don't switch out uppers either. To be honest with you I just can't see the military accepting that we can just switch out uppers.
 
The M4/M16 isnt going anywhere any time soon for a simple reason. It works and it works pretty darn well. The 5.56 works pretty darn good also. From my experience it works really good to at least 400 meters.
 
The M4/M16 isnt going anywhere any time soon for a simple reason. It works and it works pretty darn well. The 5.56 works pretty darn good also. From my experience it works really good to at least 400 meters.
Click to expand...

But but....c-grunt haven't you heard? The m16 jams when you touch it! Plus it's made by drug dealers.
 
Agreeing with horsesoilder, 5.56 does the job, real combat vets who go bang bang to the baddies love the round, they stick with it and love the M4/M16 platform. Change isn't coming for decades. 5.56 does the damage and takes the opposition out of the fight, bigger isn't always better. Does the 6.8 have amazing ballistics and trajectories, yes and probably out perfoms the 5.56, but it has been field tested and it's just not gonna happen. It may be used for SF or certain operators, but as a true replacement for the 5.56 it's momentum and chance have faded. If you are looking for the best performance then maybe all weapons should be changed to the perfect .408 caliber. But realistic logistics, how much weight vs quantity of ammunition a G.I. has to carry, more is always better for the regular grunt. The US used larger rounds before as standard caliber, 30.06/308, but the troops wanted a better round and they got one and it's been doing pretty well. It's easy to be the internet quarterback spouting numbers and trajectories, but the main objective of that round is damage, that little bullet does some MAJOR internal damage; but concerning the guy with the boot in the mud (sand now) ask him what he wants to carry and use, especially if he's got that bitch of a radio in tow too. Just my opinion, I really do not take weight from someone who's "read" or "heard from a buddy" or "compared charts" when it comes to a MILITARY weapon or round for a MILITARY application, 5.56 and M4 platform are pretty much kings of the road until a new weapon is tested for a couple years, then a couple more.
 
I really don't understand the move to a heavier larger bullet. It's known that the 7.62 Soviet tends to punch through and produce small wounds, while the 5.56 in 55 & 62gr. tends to fragment at under 200yds and inflict much more damage.

The Soviets went to the 5.45mm in Afghanistan and the Afghani fighters feared the new AK-74 because of its wounding ability. It seems like we are going backwards in a way.

But on the other hand it also seems like battle ranges are increasing, with our commitment in Afghanistan the average combat range is farther there. I've heard some soldiers are being issued updated M-14's.
 
outerlimit said:
I really don't understand the move to a heavier larger bullet. It's known that the 7.62 Soviet tends to punch through and produce small wounds, while the 5.56 in 55 & 62gr. tends to fragment at under 200yds and inflict much more damage.

The Soviets went to the 5.45mm in Afghanistan and the Afghani fighters feared the new AK-74 because of its wounding ability. It seems like we are going backwards in a way.

But on the other hand it also seems like battle ranges are increasing, with our commitment in Afghanistan the average combat range is farther there. I've heard some soldiers are being issued updated M-14's.
Click to expand...
The M14 is being issued in a Designated Marksman role with a nice scope. But really I dont see the reason why. At least the ones I saw were just plain old surplus M14s with a scope slapped on there and were not terribly accurate, at least when compared to a M16. My M16 DMR would shoot circles around them. If the engagement ranges are further in Afghanistan, I never deployed there, I would just switch to the M262 round. They have better downrange ballistics compared to the standard 62 grn, which I have shot out to 500 meters no problem.
 
While the M4 is a great gun and also various political and economical reasons its got a good chance of being the service rifle for another 50 years, remember someone at some point said "damnit, they'll never invent something better than a flintlock!"
 
..interesting praise for an undeserved round!! I've shot everything from a .22 rimfire up to a .375 H&H... I USED an M-16 in the military, but thankfully never fired a shot in battle, but PLENTY on range... I could name dozens of BETTER downrange rifles, all which come with a weight handicap... and yes, NO GI wants to carry MORE weight.

I think the trade off of 20% less ammo to carry to maintain the current "kit weight" is MORE than paid back by the ballistically SUPERIOR .270 round (6.8mm) and the COST of the upper conversion is MINOR compared to an entirely new weapon system.

... I predict the M-4 is on it's LAST LEG... there is no real need for a full-auto battle rifle in today's style of warfare... IN FACT.. it has NO USE when the enemy is hiding behid skirts and kids w/ school books....

A well aimed LONG RANGE shot is called for... with enough ballistic stability to reach out and touch someone at 500 yds. ...the effective range of the 6.8mm.
 
The digi camo colors were picked to reflect the background for the environment in which we can be expected to be fighting in (urban and desert). While the greyish color doesn't look the best, what we see close-up isn't what we see far away. They are much more effective than the woodland camo and are a marked improvement. Pretty doesn't count on the battlefield.
 
M1A

I say just go back to the M1A. It scares the crap out off the enemy and the shooter if he is not ready for the boom factor.
 
The digi camo colors were picked to reflect the background for the environment in which we can be expected to be fighting in (urban and desert). While the greyish color doesn't look the best, what we see close-up isn't what we see far away. They are much more effective than the woodland camo and are a marked improvement. Pretty doesn't count on the battlefield.
Click to expand...

I believe the story floating around these days that some idiot looking for a shiny bullet statement on his OER took USMC woodland digital pattern and changed the color palette to have one woodland (sage green), one urban (gray) and one desert (sand/offwhite/whatever) to make a "universal" pattern is probably correct. It was such an amatuerish idea that I can only assume someone with a lot more horsepower than intelligence decided he was the guy chosen to thread that needle and any inconvenient findings to the contrary be damned, etc.

In practice, the ACU pattern is wholly ineffective at close range in almost any environment you can find (gravel pits and parking lots being the one exception) -- that much gray just doesn't occur in nature with much frequency. At medium ranges it rapidly blobs out to a universally gray scheme -- again, generally ineffective in most environments. At long ranges, gray does become hard to pick out . . . but so do OG107 olive drab uniforms. Pretty sad to say that we spent however much money to create a multi-environment uniform that isn't really an improvement over Vietnam era (or even WW2 era) fatigues.

The particularly depressing part of the story is that ACU pattern was chosen for reasons that haven't really been explained, ever, over the two actual top contenders in Naticks R&D effort -- Multicam, which most everyone is familiar with these days, and their own in-house pattern that looks a bit like the British desert DPM but with different color schemes. Both included such strange and novel ideas as actually using colors commonly found in nature . . .
 
Interesting Pistolwhip. So you admit that you have no actual combat experience, but you insist that the people who actually do have the experience are wrong? Perhaps I am just to tired, but how is there any logic in that.

You can call it undeserving praise, you can say the M4 is on it's last leg. But frankly people who are actually in the know and have the experience disagree with you.
 
Both included such strange and novel ideas as actually using colors commonly found in nature
Click to expand...

Woah, you're losing me here!

I have noticed that as bad as genuine ACUPAT (technically UCP) is, the common Chinese knockoffs are even worse, with lighter individual colors and overall shade. They just don't blend with anything, gravel pits included.

I'm often in the Atlanta and Charlotte airports and I just laugh at seeing ACUs next to the far more effective Marine patterns. Woodland and desert MARPAT each look like they would actually work in their intended environments.
 
I don't understand just how much better the 6.8SPC is. The range suffers when compared to the 5.56, and for what? An extra 300 ft-lbs of energy?

It's like the 9mm-.40-.45 debate, but with rifle calibers.

And I also do not see the M4 going anywhere but forward for the time being, either. All of the new systems competing have their drawbacks just like the M4; Nothing really offers any advantage worth the money over the M4/M16 rifle.

I also do not see a bullpup being selected. They seem nice up until you want to mount a grenade launcher, or until you have to clear a jam. I also hold personal bias, being a left-handed shooter and whatnot.:uhoh:
 
I'm pretty sure they're going to replace it with the m14 :neener:

115492wu8.jpg
 
+1. Making hits is a much bigger problem than terminal ballistics at present. For the money we've spent, I think fitting existing weapons with ACOGs and AimPoints is the better course of action.
 
As far as the budget, the DOD has spent vastly more on outdated mega-weapons than it would cost to rearm the entire ground force. The guys in the trenches are the last ones to get the funding.

But the logistics of swapping ammo are a real concern, and it's probably going to have to wait until the current wars settle down before we do the swap. Plus it seems like the powers that be are waiting for some major innovation in small arms before they make the leap.

The 5.56 has no problem at all out to 500 yards
Click to expand...

How much energy does it have at that distance?
 
The 5.56 works pretty darn good also.
Click to expand...

In my experience, sometimes. Sometimes not, even with good shot placement.

real combat vets who go bang bang to the baddies love the round
Click to expand...

Some do, some don't. I don't, I have buddies who do, I have buddies who don't. Either way, it doesn't matter. You get issued what you get issued. (For us non CAG, non SF types.)
 
Last edited:
Interesting Pistolwhip. So you admit that you have no actual combat experience, but you insist that the people who actually do have the experience are wrong? Perhaps I am just to tired, but how is there any logic in that.
Click to expand...
Agreed, I also have no personal combat experience, however I have friends that have and are currently serving, of which none complained about the 5.56NATO and few about the M16/M4. My best source is in SF and while he prefers to carry a AK on occasion (to help blend in with the native population in Afghanistan) it is rare and he almost exclusively carries the M4...and unlike the average grunt he generally gets his pick of weaponry...so why the M4, it is light whilst maintaining combat effectiveness (sufficient power and range)...nuff said.
:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
Will the next major change for the Military be caliber and not rifle design?
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
7.62 Nato
7.62 Nato
J
  • Locked
Tell me about the used Colt M16 parts kits.
Replies
1
Views
485
Dr.Rob
Dr.Rob
P
  • Locked
for all the HK haters
Replies
9
Views
843
TechBrute
T
D
  • Locked
What happened to the SL-8 and USC?
Replies
5
Views
443
cslinger
C
Z
  • Locked
Question... Does Colt own the rights to the M4 and M16?
Replies
7
Views
2K
ZeroCool
Z
Back
Top