ctdonath
Member
The problem with caseless ammo is heat removal. Ejecting the case means ejecting most of the heat very efficiently; without a case to carry most of the heat away you still have the same amount of heat to dissapate.
M-16 Rifle May Be on Way Out of U.S. Army
- Thread starter mdsteele
- Start date
- Status
There is no reason to go back to the 7.62x51mm. Smaller, lighter rounds with similar penetration and range can be found.
Caseless ammo is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Friend Bud Helms was present when a caseless auto cannon being eval'd went BOOM.
Caseless ammo is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Friend Bud Helms was present when a caseless auto cannon being eval'd went BOOM.
ShaiVong
Member
Bah; They need to scrap those M16's and put Glocks with 14" barrels in service!
BevrFevr
Member
Goon
I don't know what you do for a living but you may have missed your calling. That is truely an idea of merit. A piston that you could clean off with an old nail, sharp rock, whatever you find in the field. That is sweet!
I would argue however that the real lameness of the m16 weapons system is the complicated bolt and lower reciever. One thing great about an AK type design is that if you have to shorten it you can remove the entire stock and pistol grip and still fire the thing if you have to.
It screams being able to be used as 1) a bullpup 2) a short light infantry weapon(std config). and 3) a light mg ala RPK. All stone cold realible above all others.
You can't do that with a m14 or an m16 or a garand. The only problem with the AK design is John Browning wasn't alive to show Kalishnikov how to do it better.
All the ak design needs is a better sighting system and more accuracy.
I also like the fal design if it were designed around an intermediate cartridge with less recoil like the .243 instead of being retrofitted like a DSA.
But it is no ak47/74.
-bevr
I don't know what you do for a living but you may have missed your calling. That is truely an idea of merit. A piston that you could clean off with an old nail, sharp rock, whatever you find in the field. That is sweet!
I would argue however that the real lameness of the m16 weapons system is the complicated bolt and lower reciever. One thing great about an AK type design is that if you have to shorten it you can remove the entire stock and pistol grip and still fire the thing if you have to.
It screams being able to be used as 1) a bullpup 2) a short light infantry weapon(std config). and 3) a light mg ala RPK. All stone cold realible above all others.
You can't do that with a m14 or an m16 or a garand. The only problem with the AK design is John Browning wasn't alive to show Kalishnikov how to do it better.
All the ak design needs is a better sighting system and more accuracy.
I also like the fal design if it were designed around an intermediate cartridge with less recoil like the .243 instead of being retrofitted like a DSA.
But it is no ak47/74.
-bevr
Sven
Senior Member
M14s?
BevrFevr
Member
yes m14's
Firing them full auto "as a light mg", from what I understand is not much fun. It is the full power cartridge that keeps them out of that group.
-bevr
Firing them full auto "as a light mg", from what I understand is not much fun. It is the full power cartridge that keeps them out of that group.
-bevr
Kaylee
Member
naaah.. day of the M14 as a line rifle is done. It's a fine rifle... just not the best mechanical solution the the problem.
As to the bullpups, the US doesn't seem big on the ergonomics of 'em.. specs for the new SCAR thingie specifically say "no bullpups" .. well, in technical-ese anyhow.
As to the article.. well... it's less misleading that most articles mentioning firearms I read in the media these days.
-K
As to the bullpups, the US doesn't seem big on the ergonomics of 'em.. specs for the new SCAR thingie specifically say "no bullpups" .. well, in technical-ese anyhow.
As to the article.. well... it's less misleading that most articles mentioning firearms I read in the media these days.
-K
BevrFevr- I would think that improving the sights on the AK would improve the accuracy quite a bit. Add in that it would be using good quality US made ammo and I think you would have a pretty good shooter.
Take a look at the VEPR.
Good rifle, but poorly balanced.
I think that if you stepped the .308 version down to maybe a .300 Savage casing using about a 6.5mm bullet, you might have a pretty good compromise.
If I were in charge, it would be my 6.5mm Savage AK that would be issued, and it would be issued as a semi-auto when in infantry rifle configuration.
I suppose that a .243 might be a good place to start as well, I just like to be difficult.
I would actually take the time to train my imaginary army to shoot, rather than sending them to the range once every six months and hoping they could nail 23 out of 40.
I can't argue that the AK system is better than the AR for reliability.
I was just looking at a way to make what we have better.
The buffer in the stock does hamper the changeability a little, but the collapsible stock has helped with that and it allows the user to make the rifle fit him.
I can see your point on the complex lower as being a problem, but all the troubles I have ever seen with the M-16 were the result of the direct impingement, even more so the tight tolerances.
Tight tolerances are what make the M-16 shoot like it does, but it also means that it can't deal with as much crud as the AK can.
I will say that the half worn out M-16s that I used worked every time, with the exception of blanks and the bad extractor spring that I had in BCT.
Other than that, they always went off.
So if we loosened the tolerances up on the M-16, that would probably help too.
But if we are going to make improvements, why not incorporate everything that we can to make the gun even more reliable?
All this stuff makes my brain hurt.
Take a look at the VEPR.
Good rifle, but poorly balanced.
I think that if you stepped the .308 version down to maybe a .300 Savage casing using about a 6.5mm bullet, you might have a pretty good compromise.
If I were in charge, it would be my 6.5mm Savage AK that would be issued, and it would be issued as a semi-auto when in infantry rifle configuration.
I suppose that a .243 might be a good place to start as well, I just like to be difficult.
I would actually take the time to train my imaginary army to shoot, rather than sending them to the range once every six months and hoping they could nail 23 out of 40.
I can't argue that the AK system is better than the AR for reliability.
I was just looking at a way to make what we have better.
The buffer in the stock does hamper the changeability a little, but the collapsible stock has helped with that and it allows the user to make the rifle fit him.
I can see your point on the complex lower as being a problem, but all the troubles I have ever seen with the M-16 were the result of the direct impingement, even more so the tight tolerances.
Tight tolerances are what make the M-16 shoot like it does, but it also means that it can't deal with as much crud as the AK can.
I will say that the half worn out M-16s that I used worked every time, with the exception of blanks and the bad extractor spring that I had in BCT.
Other than that, they always went off.
So if we loosened the tolerances up on the M-16, that would probably help too.
But if we are going to make improvements, why not incorporate everything that we can to make the gun even more reliable?
All this stuff makes my brain hurt.
EchoSixMike
Member
I have the solution!!
1. First, take all the O5 and higher officers involved in fielding the XM8, XM29 program...and fire them. That saves money.
2. Use the XM8, OICW, XM29, etc etc for testing not fielding. In ten to twenty years, when all the electronics are reliable and functional, you can consider fielding it. Until them, keep something that usually works.
3. Take all the money we have saved and also the money wasted on EO, sexual harrassment training and other silly crap and spend it on small arms ammo, so that Joe can shoot. There is nothing new or exciting about small arms marksmanship, it just takes work, that's all. It's not hardware, it's software. Sorry, you can't buy skill. S/F....Ken M
1. First, take all the O5 and higher officers involved in fielding the XM8, XM29 program...and fire them. That saves money.
2. Use the XM8, OICW, XM29, etc etc for testing not fielding. In ten to twenty years, when all the electronics are reliable and functional, you can consider fielding it. Until them, keep something that usually works.
3. Take all the money we have saved and also the money wasted on EO, sexual harrassment training and other silly crap and spend it on small arms ammo, so that Joe can shoot. There is nothing new or exciting about small arms marksmanship, it just takes work, that's all. It's not hardware, it's software. Sorry, you can't buy skill. S/F....Ken M
EchoSixMike said;
They'd just go to work for HK.... Opps did I say that in public...naughty me 
Jeff
They'd just go to work for HK....
Opps did I say that in public...naughty me Jeff
The US should switch to the Daewoo K2. It's reliable, accurate, has a 18" barrel, folding stock, uses standard mags, ergonomics is similar to the M16, and heck with the right accessories it could look real evil. That's why I have two Daewoo DR200's and only one AR15.
BevrFevr
Member
Amish
I just couldn't bring myself to say that. er still can't. Let's say something like the daewoo.
-bevr
I just couldn't bring myself to say that. er still can't. Let's say something like the daewoo.
-bevr
Funny thing.
M-16 = Produced by FN (who out bid Colt, nearly causing demise of comapny)
M-4 = produced by Colt and now the standard rifle in Spec Ops/ rapid deployment forces never went through procurment proceedings. Ramrodded by Rep. Charles Schumer and The then owner of Colt.. an Iraqi if I recall.
I like Colt, and the troops like the rifle.. but this sounds like pork barrel politics to me. Is it possible buying the Colt M4 will deliver hard currency to the Iraqis?
(like not as most companies are multinationals.. but enough smoking guns to start another conspiracy debate.)
And after reading Black Hawk Down the M-4 didn't do very well at 100+ yards, with the new green tip ammo.
M-16 = Produced by FN (who out bid Colt, nearly causing demise of comapny)
M-4 = produced by Colt and now the standard rifle in Spec Ops/ rapid deployment forces never went through procurment proceedings. Ramrodded by Rep. Charles Schumer and The then owner of Colt.. an Iraqi if I recall.
I like Colt, and the troops like the rifle.. but this sounds like pork barrel politics to me. Is it possible buying the Colt M4 will deliver hard currency to the Iraqis?
(like not as most companies are multinationals.. but enough smoking guns to start another conspiracy debate.)
And after reading Black Hawk Down the M-4 didn't do very well at 100+ yards, with the new green tip ammo.
Master Blaster
Member
I'm very impresed by my two outings with the Saiga .308
put a dot sight, shorter stock, and a pistol grip on the .308 siaga with a 16" barrel and you gave a powerful compact weapon, that uses nato 7.62x51 ammo, is light weight, and reliable. Its the improved AK design as well.
Easy to strip and clean, excellent accuracy moderate recoil.
Need more range, same gun with a 22" barrel and a 10x scope.
Why cant we make a rifle like this for our troops with 20 and 30 round magazines???
I think that the design is in the public domain as well.
Heck IZH could build a factory here in the US.
put a dot sight, shorter stock, and a pistol grip on the .308 siaga with a 16" barrel and you gave a powerful compact weapon, that uses nato 7.62x51 ammo, is light weight, and reliable. Its the improved AK design as well.
Easy to strip and clean, excellent accuracy moderate recoil.
Need more range, same gun with a 22" barrel and a 10x scope.
Why cant we make a rifle like this for our troops with 20 and 30 round magazines???
I think that the design is in the public domain as well.
Heck IZH could build a factory here in the US.
Al Thompson
Moderator Emeritus
Actually, someone did a web page that went through BHD and got comments. They were overwhelmingly favorable. Just the one Delta guy hated the 5.56.
Cosmoline
Member
I think they should adopt the OICWS only drop the carbine aspect. A shoulder-fired repeating 20mm cannon is as much power as any human can dish out without grabbing a tank or howitzer. If it can really detonate over the head or at the side of foes under cover, it would be the only small arm our troops would need. Forget spray and pray--we need to aim and anihilate.
BevrFevr
Member
Cosmo
I'd hate to have to clear your average iraqi apt. with a 20mm. Of course maybe hate is too strong a word, lets say I would worry more about my own safety and my buds.
-bevr
I'd hate to have to clear your average iraqi apt. with a 20mm. Of course maybe hate is too strong a word, lets say I would worry more about my own safety and my buds.
-bevr
Kaylee
Member
Cosmoline... as long as you're engaging outside the blast radius anyhow.
perhaps a P90 or som'n as backup for the grenadier?
perhaps a P90 or som'n as backup for the grenadier?
MrAcheson
Member
Sorry but in a world where military body armor is becoming common, fragmentary weapons are worth less and less. Body armor is great at soaking up fragments from say the OICW. Aimed rifle fire is a different matter.
fix
Member
Well duh. Due to modern tactics and the evolution of today's battlefield, most contact is under 300 yds. The shorter barreled rifles are an ideal compromise. It's good from 0-300 yds. Anything beyond 300 yds can be handled by designated personnel who carry weapons with a greater effective range or arty/air/mortars.
Kaylee
Member
MrA -- good point.
Which I guess gets us into the whole geopolical thing.. are we as a nation more likely to engage in the coming forty years (arbritrary number based on the M16's service life)... 1st world armies with body armor, or continue to whack up on folks from the tennis-shoes-and-commie-donated-AK school?
Alternately, is body armor capable of withstanding 20mm airbursts likely to become cheap enough to field that places like Iraq, Korea, you name it -- will start issuing it?
-K
Which I guess gets us into the whole geopolical thing.. are we as a nation more likely to engage in the coming forty years (arbritrary number based on the M16's service life)... 1st world armies with body armor, or continue to whack up on folks from the tennis-shoes-and-commie-donated-AK school?
Alternately, is body armor capable of withstanding 20mm airbursts likely to become cheap enough to field that places like Iraq, Korea, you name it -- will start issuing it?
-K
45R
Member
Over a Million M16s now available for CPM purchase....
Prices for M14 and Garands drop to 100 bucks a rifle.
Prices for M14 and Garands drop to 100 bucks a rifle.
Black Snowman
Member
I think a big issues is that the procurement people are expecting one weapon to do everything. It may seem like a good idea to bean counters but multiple specialists seems like a better option to me.
CQB assualts, large battles, marksmen, and suppression fire roles all require vastly differant tool requirments.
I'll jump on the: "Training training training, oh, and some guns of some kind." solution bandwagon.
As a general purpose battle rifle has anyone though of looking at the WSSM cartrige concept as options? .223, .243, 270 could all be options for a caliber. Larger rounds but still lightweight. Quite volume efficient for their power.
CQB assualts, large battles, marksmen, and suppression fire roles all require vastly differant tool requirments.
I'll jump on the: "Training training training, oh, and some guns of some kind." solution bandwagon.
As a general purpose battle rifle has anyone though of looking at the WSSM cartrige concept as options? .223, .243, 270 could all be options for a caliber. Larger rounds but still lightweight. Quite volume efficient for their power.
BevrFevr
Member
Black Snowman
I'd be agin any shorties and stick to full length brass. A 243 is a necked down 308. We already have alot of infrastructure set up for .308 so we could use that. I suggest .243 for it's milder recoil than the .308, 7.62, whatever and more umph than a .223.
I may be convinced other wise after shooting a stubby as I have not yet.
Just talking out my arse as usual.
-bevr
I'd be agin any shorties and stick to full length brass. A 243 is a necked down 308. We already have alot of infrastructure set up for .308 so we could use that. I suggest .243 for it's milder recoil than the .308, 7.62, whatever and more umph than a .223.
I may be convinced other wise after shooting a stubby as I have not yet.
Just talking out my arse as usual.
-bevr
- Status
