icebones
Member
with all the bad reports from the troops about the m4/m16a2 rifles constant jamming, and low stopping power due to short barrel length, is it so hard to ask for a better weapon?
the ideal rifle for the military
- Thread starter icebones
- Start date
- Status
BobTheTomato
Member
My guess is a great deal of politics goes into selection and the purchase of it. It cant be easy to do something in DC without alot of fighting.....plus I am sure companies have a lot at stake with existing contracts.
alsaqr
Member
The few dozen infantry folks that I have talked with have no problem with the M4 or M16. The big problem is that the squad automatic weapon, the SAW, is too light for the job. Infantry squads used to have an M60 machine gun as the squad automatic weapon.
icebones
Member
not that the ar-15 series are bad weapons, i love my m4 and ar-15, but they have flaws, the direct gas impengement system, for one, it does simplify the action, but it sprays powder fouling back into the bolt and reciever. causing problems if not cleaned after 250-300 rounds. another problem is the ar-15 is a conventional layout, more and more countires are adopting bullpup rifles, for good reason more compact and longer barrel.
since i am going to be on an air force base for the next 6 years, it would be a good ideal to start drawing up plans.
I have a vision of the perfect rifle...
this rifle i have invisioned should meet the following criteria
---bullpup layout, because i am right handed ambi-layout really dosent matter to me. a bullpup is much shorter than conventional rifles, this is extremely important in urban combat where a short, light and fast wepon can save you life and the lives of your fellow soliders.
---a standard barrel length of at least 24'' to obtain high velocity and accuracy, this also results in greater stopping power.
---chambered in 5.56x45mm, even better if the barrel could be made with carbon fiber=less weight, stronger than steel and resistant to overheating
---an overall length of less than 30'' with the 24'' bbl attached, this does sound drastic, but it is possible with the right bolt design
---a gas-operated action with an gas-op rod and tapped system for greater reliability and less fouling.
---accepts standard STNAG m16 mags and drums
---weights no more than 6 lbs empty, w/o magazine, this is where the use of carbon fiber, alloys and synthetics would come into play.
---a picatinny rail for mounting optics, also a quad rail system for mounting foregrips, laser, lights ect.
---an ideal service life of at least 20,000 rounds with ss109 military spec ammunition
---a design which allows the weapon to be field stripped and parts changed out with no tools, except a cartridge for punching out pins, also a modular design so barrels and other parts could be swapped for flexibility, so a carbine, rifle, squad machinegun, designated marksmans rifle could be made.
---ergonomic controlls that are easy to manupulate under extreme stress and adverse conditions, but at the same time, sleek, unobtrusive and snag proof
---speaking of bolt design, i am thinking of either a telescopic bolt (UZI stlye) or a hinged bolt like that found on the new KRISS super V smg, this bolt desing would also reduce recoil. if you have not heard of the new KRISS i strongly suggest checking it out, an intersiting weapon indeed, a .45caliber smg with almost ZERO RECOIL.
---above all this new rifle will be 100% reliable in any condition, easy to use under stress, rugged, light weight, low maintenece, provide the troops with greater stopping power, simple in design and maintenence, and compact in size. also fast and easy to produce to reduce production costs and unit price. this rifle should cost less than $350-$450 to produce in materials and labor
since i am going to be on an air force base for the next 6 years, it would be a good ideal to start drawing up plans.
I have a vision of the perfect rifle...
this rifle i have invisioned should meet the following criteria
---bullpup layout, because i am right handed ambi-layout really dosent matter to me. a bullpup is much shorter than conventional rifles, this is extremely important in urban combat where a short, light and fast wepon can save you life and the lives of your fellow soliders.
---a standard barrel length of at least 24'' to obtain high velocity and accuracy, this also results in greater stopping power.
---chambered in 5.56x45mm, even better if the barrel could be made with carbon fiber=less weight, stronger than steel and resistant to overheating
---an overall length of less than 30'' with the 24'' bbl attached, this does sound drastic, but it is possible with the right bolt design
---a gas-operated action with an gas-op rod and tapped system for greater reliability and less fouling.
---accepts standard STNAG m16 mags and drums
---weights no more than 6 lbs empty, w/o magazine, this is where the use of carbon fiber, alloys and synthetics would come into play.
---a picatinny rail for mounting optics, also a quad rail system for mounting foregrips, laser, lights ect.
---an ideal service life of at least 20,000 rounds with ss109 military spec ammunition
---a design which allows the weapon to be field stripped and parts changed out with no tools, except a cartridge for punching out pins, also a modular design so barrels and other parts could be swapped for flexibility, so a carbine, rifle, squad machinegun, designated marksmans rifle could be made.
---ergonomic controlls that are easy to manupulate under extreme stress and adverse conditions, but at the same time, sleek, unobtrusive and snag proof
---speaking of bolt design, i am thinking of either a telescopic bolt (UZI stlye) or a hinged bolt like that found on the new KRISS super V smg, this bolt desing would also reduce recoil. if you have not heard of the new KRISS i strongly suggest checking it out, an intersiting weapon indeed, a .45caliber smg with almost ZERO RECOIL.
---above all this new rifle will be 100% reliable in any condition, easy to use under stress, rugged, light weight, low maintenece, provide the troops with greater stopping power, simple in design and maintenence, and compact in size. also fast and easy to produce to reduce production costs and unit price. this rifle should cost less than $350-$450 to produce in materials and labor
Matt-J2
Member
Here we go again.
I think the military should just switch to double rifles and dueling pistols, and fight with proper gentlemanly weapons.
I think the military should just switch to double rifles and dueling pistols, and fight with proper gentlemanly weapons.
miestro_jerry
Member
I went thru boot camp with the M14, I currently own a M1a Match and have owned many over the years. This rifle was brought out of storage to be used in the same role that the M1 Garand was in WWII. The M4s and like weapons are just replacements for Tommy Guns, Grease Guns and the like.
Every man should have a dependable rifle with only a few should have pray and spray weapons.
Jerry
Every man should have a dependable rifle with only a few should have pray and spray weapons.
Jerry
RNB65
Member
If someone offered up a rifle that was a substantial improvement over the AR, the military would switch. So far no one has. It's as simple as that. HK tried to develop a better mousetrap with the XM8 but the project was badly mismanaged, over budget, and the rifle had several significant developmental issues and the project was killed. I suspect the AR platform will be the rifle of choice for the military for at least a couple decades to come.
.
.
Sergeant Sabre
Member
Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
The ideal rifle for our military is the M16, in whatever variation they have now. Mine was a Colt M16a2. It won't let you down.
W.E.G.
Member
You keep ask the question.
You know what is the answer.
You know what is the answer.
P-32
Member
I don't believe there is anything wrong with the M-16 platform. The problem is there is no 1 weapon system which will meet every requirement the armed forces come across. It's the same as trying to use my deer rifle for high power competition. Yeah it, could shoot it but it just won't shoot it very well and would need to be heavily mod'ed. Would I need a rifle made just for High Power? Sure but it won't hunt so well either.
How come my M16's have never jammed in Iraq or Afganistan?
Did I just get the 'good ones'?
Or maybe it has to due with proper enviromental lubercation and being a well disiplined Marine, who keeps his weapon clean and instills onto his NCO's to keep thier weapons clean and ensure the jr Marines keep thier weapons clean.
Someone please explain this to a Marine Engineer who's been in the Marine Corps for 8-1/2 years, rolled with the grunts into places we'll never see on the news and never experianced the things I hear about M16 failure on the internet.
Did I just get the 'good ones'?
Or maybe it has to due with proper enviromental lubercation and being a well disiplined Marine, who keeps his weapon clean and instills onto his NCO's to keep thier weapons clean and ensure the jr Marines keep thier weapons clean.
Someone please explain this to a Marine Engineer who's been in the Marine Corps for 8-1/2 years, rolled with the grunts into places we'll never see on the news and never experianced the things I hear about M16 failure on the internet.
MD_Willington
Member
would be like RAID...
point and click, kills (insert what or who they are killing here) DEAD...
point and click, kills (insert what or who they are killing here) DEAD...
mljdeckard
Member
The reports coming from soldiers in Iraq cannot be given full credit. What rifle can they possibly be comparing it to? None of them have been in the military since 1965, the M-16 is the only rifle they know that they have had full training with and carried to war.
As others have said, I must be VERY lucky. The only M-16 I ever had problems with was one I used in basic training at Ft. Knox in 1991, which was an A-1 with a mish-mash of A-2 parts, I only used it for blanks, I never had to qualify with it. Even my guard unit gave me a sparkling A-2.
The M-16 has been our issued rifle longer than ANY OTHER RIFLE IN THE HISTORY OF THE U.S. ARMY. In October I took my squad to the range to qualify. I had a female E-2 from Fresno, 105 lbs, thick glasses, small hands, who had never touched a firearm prior to entering the army about 9 months before. She qualified expert. Do any of you battle rifle fans think she could have done that with an M-14?
I'm not thrilled with a 5.56 either. I would not hunt game the same weight as a human with it. The difference is, a good select-fire rifle makes it likely that you can hit more than once. a heavier round has exactly zero advantage if my soldiers can't hit with it.
All the new revolutions of ammo, 6 point whatever, ad nauseum, nothing is giving a distinct advantage as long as we are using steel-core FMJ. And when in unknown engagements, where the enemy may or may not be in vehicles or behind cover, I PREFER 62 gr steel-core. I would be willing to entertain one of the newer rifle designs with a gas-piston instead of a tube, but I would like it even more if I saw one that can be fitted to existing rifles without too much trouble.
As others have said, I must be VERY lucky. The only M-16 I ever had problems with was one I used in basic training at Ft. Knox in 1991, which was an A-1 with a mish-mash of A-2 parts, I only used it for blanks, I never had to qualify with it. Even my guard unit gave me a sparkling A-2.
The M-16 has been our issued rifle longer than ANY OTHER RIFLE IN THE HISTORY OF THE U.S. ARMY. In October I took my squad to the range to qualify. I had a female E-2 from Fresno, 105 lbs, thick glasses, small hands, who had never touched a firearm prior to entering the army about 9 months before. She qualified expert. Do any of you battle rifle fans think she could have done that with an M-14?
I'm not thrilled with a 5.56 either. I would not hunt game the same weight as a human with it. The difference is, a good select-fire rifle makes it likely that you can hit more than once. a heavier round has exactly zero advantage if my soldiers can't hit with it.
All the new revolutions of ammo, 6 point whatever, ad nauseum, nothing is giving a distinct advantage as long as we are using steel-core FMJ. And when in unknown engagements, where the enemy may or may not be in vehicles or behind cover, I PREFER 62 gr steel-core. I would be willing to entertain one of the newer rifle designs with a gas-piston instead of a tube, but I would like it even more if I saw one that can be fitted to existing rifles without too much trouble.
Eightball
Member
+1
Since ARs are jammomatic toys that are weaker than throwing disembodied frog legs at people, the plasma rifles seem to be gaining in popularity.
But if you must have absolute reliability and knockdown power, the double rifle in .416 rigby is a must have, especially if you disregard all literature regarding proper cleaning and maintenance of one's rifle:
It can take down mere elephants, but if you really don't want to chance it, the .500 NE does the trick, but you can't carry as many rounds for the weight difference.
Matt-J2
Member
Plasma rifles are for fighting dirty, they'd certainly be outside the bounds of propriety.
However, if we're going to fight dirty, then dammit, we're going to have sharks with frikkin laser beams on their heads.
However, if we're going to fight dirty, then dammit, we're going to have sharks with frikkin laser beams on their heads.
Ignition Override
Member
My vast rifle experience: A few times with the powerful ancient Savage .22 single-shot over 20 years and then several well-briefed missions (with no air support) against dangerous, empty Tropicana juice jugs using my new store-bought M-1 Carbine... until it broke after two months and was sent back to the (Kahr) factory.
Pardon me for quoting from a book here, the "The Great Book of Guns", by Chris McNab, Thunder Bay Press. Found it at Borders Books in December.
There are full pages dedicated to Fabrique Nationale, the Garand in WW2, the Ak-47 and the M-16 in Vietnam etc.
"The list of guns produced by FN (Liege, then Herstal Belgium) before 1949 includes the Browning Hi-Power 9 mm handgun, the B. M1917, M1919, and M2 machine guns; the Browning BAR; and the Mauser Mle 1924 rifle. Even 40mm Bofors were manuf. from 1936 on". I can imagine some of you now
Now a pertinent quote from a section (p. 313), "The Switch To Small Caliber", about going from 7.62 to 5.56: about the 7.62 " It generated heavy recoil forces, making it unsuited to three-round burst and full-auto fire in an assault rifle, extending the training times required...".
"The most important factor in the debate, however, is that any bullet must hit a vital physical structure to guarantee a kill on a human target; cavitation or physical shock are not sufficient in themselves". His description of the SS109 (M-16) round: "The takedown power is ensured if a vital area is struck".
I know little about guns, but the book is quite interesting and informative for a novice (trying to play 'catch-up'), but not as much as your real-world debate. I would like to find a page on the Internet which has clear pictures of vital gun components in semi-automatics (Ruger Mini, M-1 Carbine) such as the extractor, various parts of the action, gas tube etc in order to find out exactly where they are and what they look like(hint, hint).
My ignorance is quite vast, but I am only recently so enthusiastic about military rifles. A German friend (has a very reliable Colt AR-15 and a Walther [he is from Essen but has no Ger. rifles]) and my wife are surprised by it.
Pardon me for quoting from a book here, the "The Great Book of Guns", by Chris McNab, Thunder Bay Press. Found it at Borders Books in December.
There are full pages dedicated to Fabrique Nationale, the Garand in WW2, the Ak-47 and the M-16 in Vietnam etc.
"The list of guns produced by FN (Liege, then Herstal Belgium) before 1949 includes the Browning Hi-Power 9 mm handgun, the B. M1917, M1919, and M2 machine guns; the Browning BAR; and the Mauser Mle 1924 rifle. Even 40mm Bofors were manuf. from 1936 on". I can imagine some of you now
Now a pertinent quote from a section (p. 313), "The Switch To Small Caliber", about going from 7.62 to 5.56: about the 7.62 " It generated heavy recoil forces, making it unsuited to three-round burst and full-auto fire in an assault rifle, extending the training times required...".
"The most important factor in the debate, however, is that any bullet must hit a vital physical structure to guarantee a kill on a human target; cavitation or physical shock are not sufficient in themselves". His description of the SS109 (M-16) round: "The takedown power is ensured if a vital area is struck".
I know little about guns, but the book is quite interesting and informative for a novice (trying to play 'catch-up'), but not as much as your real-world debate. I would like to find a page on the Internet which has clear pictures of vital gun components in semi-automatics (Ruger Mini, M-1 Carbine) such as the extractor, various parts of the action, gas tube etc in order to find out exactly where they are and what they look like
(hint, hint).My ignorance is quite vast, but I am only recently so enthusiastic about military rifles. A German friend (has a very reliable Colt AR-15 and a Walther [he is from Essen but has no Ger. rifles]) and my wife are surprised by it.
I see the comment a lot that the M16 shoves burnt powder and crap back into the receiver. Can some one please point out a modern semi-auto rifle that doesn't do this? Every semi-auto rifle I own pushes some crap back into the receiver when they eject the spent shell. They all get dirty. Lack of a direct impingement system does not mean the receiver stays clean.
Now there are some good reasons why the AK (for example) withstands the dirt and crap in the receiver, but using a piston alone isn't it.
Now there are some good reasons why the AK (for example) withstands the dirt and crap in the receiver, but using a piston alone isn't it.
Slvr Surfr
Member
The current Gas Impingement design uses the spent gas from a fired round to cycle the bolt carrier back. The gas is blown into the bolt carrier and chamber. This repeated action puts burnt powder residue, carbon, and crud back into this vital area and could cause an issue if not cleaned properly. Add in lubricant, and harsh environment conditions and it makes for a bad mix. This subject has hashed over many times. A Gas Piston design limits the amount of spent gas from reaching the bolt carrier and bolt chamber. It also reduces the amount of heat being put on the bolt carrier, bolt, and chamber.
12131
Member
Really
.
Secret investigation has shown the existence of a 50 mega joule laser rifle that runs off two AA batteries , weighs 3 pounds and after blowing through both sides of an Abrams has enough leftover energy to pop chunks out of the backside of the moon. Yet this rifle has not been issued to our troops, who are in desperate need.
To go off in a slightly different direction, I think that what the world needs is a radical revision of the AK. It should still be made out of stamped sheet metal, caveman simple, long-stroke piston, and dirt cheap, but it needs to be redesigned to have the receiver lie along the upper half of the rifle so that a fixed rail and a good peep sight can be attached to it. The front trunnion should have a protruding extension to provide a solid base to mount different forearms, (rails, free float tubes, grenade launchers, etc...). Rather than try to figure out a new charging handle on the left side, the rifles should just be made left handed. And an easily operated and quiet safety should be added as well as a LRBHO.
I think the problem with most revisions of the AK is that they forget that what has made the original so successful is it's simplicity and affordability as much as it's reliability. Valmet and Swiss Arms make beautiful rifles, but they're not the kind of weapons that third world armies and revolutionaries can afford.
I think the problem with most revisions of the AK is that they forget that what has made the original so successful is it's simplicity and affordability as much as it's reliability. Valmet and Swiss Arms make beautiful rifles, but they're not the kind of weapons that third world armies and revolutionaries can afford.
C-grunt
Member
Why is it these "reports" always say the rifle/ammo doesnt work, but all the veterans have no problems with it? Why is it a lot of Soldiers/Marines I know return and buy an AR-15?
Because A) the reports are fake and B) the M-16 family is a good rifle.
Because A) the reports are fake and B) the M-16 family is a good rifle.
- Status
