Read in a Defense periocical that production of the M16 rifle will end in about 2 years (for US forces anyway). The US Army isn't buying any new ones, probably because of the pending XM8 program, and the USMC won't buy any more after this year (IIRC). The FN spokesman seemed kind of peeved that the US has chosen to supply AK-47's to the new Afghan Army/Police instead of buying M16's for them. Evidently, the US required that the AK-47's supplied had to be new, unfired weapons with a manufacture date of not earlier than 1987. Some Jordanian company responded with an offer of $60 per rifle, to include bayonet, sling, cleaning kit, ammo pouch, and 4 mags per weapon.
M-16 production to end?
- Thread starter Slater
- Start date
- Status
SodaPop
member
Good.
Andrew Wyatt
Member
just about the time we get it working right.
the money for the XM8 program would be better spent getting body armor to our troops, or optics for every soldier, or whatever,
the money for the XM8 program would be better spent getting body armor to our troops, or optics for every soldier, or whatever,
Black Snowman
Member
$$ tward training and trigger time.
ProCharger
Member
where do i sign up!
rock jock
Member
Imagine the day when an AR will be a C&R rifle?
cookhj
Member
because instead of stockpiling captured "loot," we destroy it all like idiots so that we can spend more money on buying new stuff for the people that we supply arms to. if the gov can find a way to spend more money, they will.
Badger Arms
Member
This same logic suggests that we should have bought more trapdoor Springfields instead of rearming with the Krag. We should have kept the M1903 in production and not spent tons of money over decades to develop the Garand rifle and it's not-so-good replacement, the M-14. We should have kept the SAA pistol because it gave us everything we needed and the M1911 was just a 'cool gun'. Darned if we needed the F-86 when the F-84 was good enough to shoot down every fighter in existance at the time! Who needs a Pentium, I've got a Commodore 64! Woohoo!
Taking the argument to the absurd, we should research NOTHING because what we have already works good enough, eh? The M16 will be replaced ANYHOW. What is wrong with replacing it with a cheaper, more reliable deisgn? If we could build 'phaser' guns, would you be against it? Would you cite the lack of proper spoons in mess kits? Why are we spending all this money on phasers when our troops don't have a choice between Kevlar that weighs 40 pounds and a Kevlar alternative that weighs 38 pounds!?
I just find it VERY unlikely that in 1956 all thought on small arms design was supposed to Cease and we must forever bow down to our lord Gene Stoner (who designed only a small portion of the AR-15 to begin with).
Snaps
Member
Where can I get one of those new $60 AKs?
Destructo6
Member
More like we issue new weapons with known serial numbers, so when they turn up in the enemy's hands, we know where it came from and who is responsible for it.
Also, if the contracts are awarded to countries that were on board with the coalition, such as Poland, it can serve as a reward system. Note that while the Jordanians offered, it does not say it was accepted.
Preacherman
Member
Because, speaking from many years of personal experience, rifles that are issued to Third World soldiers tend to become dirty, corrosion-laden, rusty, and unbelievably inaccurate within a relatively short space of time! The AK series can take this abuse better than almost anything else, but even these have their limits. I can introduce you to several dozen soldiers with whom I served, or who I know personally, who are alive today because the idiot shooting at them hadn't cleaned or maintained his AK in heaven knows how long - and the accuracy and reliability of his weapon suffered accordingly.
Besides, if we can get new ones at $60 a pop, just think of the manpower costs (in $ per hour) to clean all those old AK's! You're probably talking 3-6 hours per rifle (optimistic estimate!) to get them really clean, lubricated, de-rusted and fully operational: and that cost per rifle would probably be more than the cost of a new weapon.
Well after 40 years we've almost finished fielding the M16. Soon all of the old M16A1s will be out of service and everyone will finally be armed with ERC-A weapons. M4s, M16A2s or M16A4s. The Marines will soon finish buying all of the M16A4s they need. Let's not forget that a couple years ago a contract was let for conversion kits to buy the necessary parts to convert M16A1s to M16A2s.
The M1 soldiered on for a decade or more after we stopped production of them. This in no way means the M16 will be out of service soon. It just means we've built all we need.
In another 10-20 years when we've made a breakthrough worth the cost of changing over, we will phase the M16 out of service. Badger will still be lamenting the failure to adopt the XM8
and everything will be the same at THR 
Jeff
The M1 soldiered on for a decade or more after we stopped production of them. This in no way means the M16 will be out of service soon. It just means we've built all we need.
In another 10-20 years when we've made a breakthrough worth the cost of changing over, we will phase the M16 out of service. Badger will still be lamenting the failure to adopt the XM8
and everything will be the same at THR Jeff
alan
Member
Jeff White:
Did I read wrong, or has/is there actually some movement/talk in the direction of a larger caliber "upper", about 6.7mm, due to the lack of stopping power I understand has been experienced in Afganistan?
Did I read wrong, or has/is there actually some movement/talk in the direction of a larger caliber "upper", about 6.7mm, due to the lack of stopping power I understand has been experienced in Afganistan?
alan,
It's entirely possible that the Special Ops community will have a 6.8x43 caliber upper receiver. I doubt that it will be adopted throughout the force. In fact, there has only been anecdotal reports of lack of effectiveness of M855 ammunition in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is no move within the army to change to a larger caliber for the big army. In fact even my friend Badger's favorite weapon comes in 5.56x45.
Jeff
It's entirely possible that the Special Ops community will have a 6.8x43 caliber upper receiver. I doubt that it will be adopted throughout the force. In fact, there has only been anecdotal reports of lack of effectiveness of M855 ammunition in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is no move within the army to change to a larger caliber for the big army. In fact even my friend Badger's favorite weapon comes in 5.56x45.
Jeff
Tamara
Senior Member
BadgerArms,
There's no need to "take the argument to the absurd", Badger, as you already did it in the first three sentences of your post.
1) Replacement of a large-bore, single-shot black powder rifle with a magazine-fed repeater.
2) Replacement of a medium-bore bolt-action rifle with a medium-bore gas-operated semi-auto.
3) Replacement of a single-action, black powder revolver with a semiautomatic pistol (without mentioning the intervening step of a smokeless, medium-bore, double-action revolver)
4) Replacement of a gas-operated, small-bore carbine with, well... a gas-operated, small-bore carbine.
"One of these things is not like the others; one of them is different, wouldn't you know. Take a guess which thing is not like the others, and I'll tell you if it is so." That was, indeed, a textbook example of reductio ad absurdum.
"But it's COOL! It's made by Aitch und Kay!"
Remember, the G36 was H&K's fall-back plan if the OICW program failed, right, Badger?
There's no need to "take the argument to the absurd", Badger, as you already did it in the first three sentences of your post.
1) Replacement of a large-bore, single-shot black powder rifle with a magazine-fed repeater.
2) Replacement of a medium-bore bolt-action rifle with a medium-bore gas-operated semi-auto.
3) Replacement of a single-action, black powder revolver with a semiautomatic pistol (without mentioning the intervening step of a smokeless, medium-bore, double-action revolver)
4) Replacement of a gas-operated, small-bore carbine with, well... a gas-operated, small-bore carbine.
"One of these things is not like the others; one of them is different, wouldn't you know. Take a guess which thing is not like the others, and I'll tell you if it is so."
That was, indeed, a textbook example of reductio ad absurdum."But it's COOL! It's made by Aitch und Kay!"
Remember, the G36 was H&K's fall-back plan if the OICW program failed, right, Badger?
Kaylee
Member
alan... I ain't Jeff, but...
- the new 6.8 round was requested for SOCOM's SCAR rifle project.
- Barret has produced an AR upper to fire said new round
As far as I've heard, the 6.8 is currently slated for SOCOM only, but my intuition is telling me within months of the SCAR and the new uberround coming out, the regular service is gonna be all over it like a crate of Chinese Black Berets.
-K
and Badger, dude... stick with the "we're replacing inventory anyway, we might as well replace it with the G36/XM8" argument. That one holds water. Touche, point to you, makes sense.
But the "you're all a bunch of luddites against all technical progress in small arms" straw man is gettin' tiresome.
edit.. what Tam said.
- the new 6.8 round was requested for SOCOM's SCAR rifle project.
- Barret has produced an AR upper to fire said new round
As far as I've heard, the 6.8 is currently slated for SOCOM only, but my intuition is telling me within months of the SCAR and the new uberround coming out, the regular service is gonna be all over it like a crate of Chinese Black Berets.
-K
and Badger, dude... stick with the "we're replacing inventory anyway, we might as well replace it with the G36/XM8" argument. That one holds water. Touche, point to you, makes sense.
But the "you're all a bunch of luddites against all technical progress in small arms" straw man is gettin' tiresome.
edit.. what Tam said.
Kaylee,
I hate to disagree with you about the 6.8x43, but I don't see anyone but SOF getting it. Truthfully, there are nothing but a couple anecdotal reports of M855 being less then satisfactory in combat. The 6.8x43 is a fantastic round. I have the datat on it, and it's killing me not being able to share with my friends here at THR, hopefully after the SHOT Show when it becomes public.
The Army has too big an investment made in 5.56x45 and it is performing just fine in combat. SOF has some unique requirements. The same thing that will keep the XM8 out of service will keep the big army from adopting the 6.8x43, it just doesn't offer a big enough improvement to justify the cost.
Jeff
I hate to disagree with you about the 6.8x43, but I don't see anyone but SOF getting it. Truthfully, there are nothing but a couple anecdotal reports of M855 being less then satisfactory in combat. The 6.8x43 is a fantastic round. I have the datat on it, and it's killing me not being able to share with my friends here at THR, hopefully after the SHOT Show when it becomes public.
The Army has too big an investment made in 5.56x45 and it is performing just fine in combat. SOF has some unique requirements. The same thing that will keep the XM8 out of service will keep the big army from adopting the 6.8x43, it just doesn't offer a big enough improvement to justify the cost.
Jeff
Kaylee
Member
Jeff..
I'll agree with you on the big investment in 5.56, I'll agree that I've also heard that 6.8 is just for the go-fast guys, and I'll even agree with you that for your line folks holding ground it might well not be worth the switch in the short term. So on straight "does it make sense?" points I agree with you completely.
**But** this is the same army that just issued new hats so everybody could feel all special and stuff.
Once the round enters service, I'm predicting a fair amount of internal (and external) politicking to make it general issue. I could well be wrong, have been before, but that's my prediction. Presuming SCAR and the 6.8 aren't shelved, 6.8 as general issue by 2013. Likely sooner.
Free Soothsaying, worth what ya paid for it.
-K
I'll agree with you on the big investment in 5.56, I'll agree that I've also heard that 6.8 is just for the go-fast guys, and I'll even agree with you that for your line folks holding ground it might well not be worth the switch in the short term. So on straight "does it make sense?" points I agree with you completely.
**But** this is the same army that just issued new hats so everybody could feel all special and stuff.
Once the round enters service, I'm predicting a fair amount of internal (and external) politicking to make it general issue. I could well be wrong, have been before, but that's my prediction. Presuming SCAR and the 6.8 aren't shelved, 6.8 as general issue by 2013. Likely sooner.
Free Soothsaying, worth what ya paid for it.
-K
Longbow
Member
You'll have to join the Afghan army?!
Badger Arms
Member
So small arms development did stop at the AR-15? Wow, I didn't read the memo.
Back to replacing a weapon with another model of similar capability: I'll parallel this with the replacement of one car with another. I used this argument about twenty threads ago, but I'll recycle it. It's like replacing a 1995 Toyota Corolla with a 2003 Nissan Altima. Sure, there isn't really that much wrong with your Corolla and it still gets about the same gas mileage, has airbags, CD player, etc. In fact, they are virtually identical in most respects. Why would you not buy another 1995 Corolla?
I frankly don't get what the point of quoting me saying that "The XM8 was a fallback plan if the OICW didn't pass the mustard" is. Is the implication that I was somehow suggesting the XM8 was inferior and they considered the OICW better? If so, you are incorrect. My statement was meant to reflect that H&K was practicing good business by developing more than just a monster weapon and thus they have a resiliant design to back it up.
To illustrate, the G36 sprouted from the background as the G11 failed miserably. By further developing and tuing the G36 for the possible American Market, H&K was positioning themselves for a move on that market if and when it materialized.
The British and US sure as heck failed to practice this. They put all of their eggs in one basket on more than one occassion. Look at the development of the M-14. It was intended to [snicker] replace the battle rifle, submachinegun, machinegun, and even pistol in some cases. They asked too much of one weapon system and doomed it to failure from the start.
Back to replacing a weapon with another model of similar capability: I'll parallel this with the replacement of one car with another. I used this argument about twenty threads ago, but I'll recycle it. It's like replacing a 1995 Toyota Corolla with a 2003 Nissan Altima. Sure, there isn't really that much wrong with your Corolla and it still gets about the same gas mileage, has airbags, CD player, etc. In fact, they are virtually identical in most respects. Why would you not buy another 1995 Corolla?
I frankly don't get what the point of quoting me saying that "The XM8 was a fallback plan if the OICW didn't pass the mustard" is. Is the implication that I was somehow suggesting the XM8 was inferior and they considered the OICW better? If so, you are incorrect. My statement was meant to reflect that H&K was practicing good business by developing more than just a monster weapon and thus they have a resiliant design to back it up.
To illustrate, the G36 sprouted from the background as the G11 failed miserably. By further developing and tuing the G36 for the possible American Market, H&K was positioning themselves for a move on that market if and when it materialized.
The British and US sure as heck failed to practice this. They put all of their eggs in one basket on more than one occassion. Look at the development of the M-14. It was intended to [snicker] replace the battle rifle, submachinegun, machinegun, and even pistol in some cases. They asked too much of one weapon system and doomed it to failure from the start.
WonderNine
member
I think the 6.8 is a crock of sheeeat.
For the time being I believe the 55 grain 5.56X45mm out of a 20" barrel in select fire, semi auto and full auto (not the burst fire retard crap they came out with as standard recently) is still perfect for frontline soldiers backed up of course with some .308 snipers and machine gunners. And .50 cal snipers/MGers for "reach out and touch someone" distance.
For the time being I believe the 55 grain 5.56X45mm out of a 20" barrel in select fire, semi auto and full auto (not the burst fire retard crap they came out with as standard recently) is still perfect for frontline soldiers backed up of course with some .308 snipers and machine gunners. And .50 cal snipers/MGers for "reach out and touch someone" distance.
VG
Member
OK, I have big - really big - stacks of captured AKM's spread throughout Iraq. They were purchased illegally over the last ten years because of UN sanctions so they came from various sources purchased by Saddam appointees who were responsive to bribes. They have been maintained durin that time by uneducated conscripts who were making $7 per month or so and were trained by political appointees.
What do you bid to supply the Iraqi SD Force with functional rifles in excellent condition, inventoried by serial number and with a service life of at least 10 years? You have to take back any bad ones and ship replacements.
Let's say the Iraqi SD force is 50,000 men. At $60 each, that's $3 million. For the used rifles we should only pay 60%, lets say? Supply us with 50,000 rifles for which you guarantee function for one year for $2.4 million and you've got a deal. We'll tell you where these big stacks are, but you've got to go get them and provide your own security. Oh, and we need 4-6 magazines with each rifle.
Sound good? Now you know why we simply bought a warehouse full.
- Status
