Replacement for US Standard Issue Infantry Longarm

[Foxy]

I was pondering this today, without much success.

Are there any weapons available today that would be worth switching to as the standard issue US Infantry longarm? Are any firearms in production significantly more reliable, accurate, durable, user-friendly, etc, etc, etc to make a change-over of half a million M16's in inventory worth it?

From my point of view, while there may be firearms that are more accurate and more reliable, none are of a significant enough improvement to warrant moving a huge logistical tail to a new system.

For any shortcomings (real or perceived) of the M16 family, they have proven themselves, in my eyes, in over 40 years of combat all around the globe, and the M16 seems adequate to last for years to come. I don't think it would be worth expending billions of dollars to replace the M16 with a new family of weapons, including spare parts, magazines, and possibly ammunition; training armorers and troops; and trying to somehow get rid of the excess, 'obsolete' arm.

Any other opinions?

 

[Jamie Young]

If America didn't have a mighty Air Force and superior ground forces I'm sure people would want a different rifle. Its all about "modern combat" more than "rifle vs. rifle."

We could probable fight 80% of modern warfare without using rifles or nuclear weapons.

 

[Blackhawk]

SodaPop is right.

We're not going to be in firefights against any foreseeable enemy in the foreseeable future.

We don't have a need to train the techno troops on new rifles when we never seemed to have a need to train them well on what they're equipped with now.

A rifle, or any gun, is no more effective than the person weilding it, and a rifleman is 90% the man, or as Sam sez "Tis the user."

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

After seeing Blackhawk Down, I think they should just abandon the battle rifle and issue 1911's.

 

[Travis Beck]

The G36 seems to be about the best 5.56mm assault rifle out there today IMO. I don't know if it would be worth the expense to replace the M16 family but that is what I would buy if I were Emperor for a day. The Russian AN-94 also looks like it has some interesting features.

The M16 series is a good weapon, as it well should be with almost 40 years of refinements and improvements. I think the biggest problems are a result of using the 62 grain steel-core ammunition instead of the 55 grain FMJ. Shooting a fanatical/stoned enemy with a .22 icepick might be fatal, but is it quickly incapacitating? It's the Moro insurrection all over again.

We need to use better ammo. Or at least ammo selected to fit the needs of the mission. Mogadishu didn't require AP but that is what we used.

 

[buzz_knox]

We're not going to be in firefights against any foreseeable enemy in the foreseeable future.

How can you reasonably say that when we've lost troops recently in firefights in Afghanistan? And the modern reality of warfare is that we will be facing an enemy with little in the way of fixed installations or resources, and whose primary means of conducting war is through individual action. If anything, the two most important factors we have are intelligence gathering and the ability to put metal onto flesh, i.e. individual combat arms.

 

[AndrewWalkowiak]

Cost, and logistical considerations aside, I think an "ideal" service rifle, would be something like a M-16 ergonomically, but with a gas piston design like the AR-18/180, the G36, or the Daewoo K2 for reliability, instead of direct gas impingment. And it would fire a 6mm round similar to the 80's experimental 6mm SAW, or 6mm PPC. No buffer tube in the stock though, so a true folding stock can be employed for airborne and armored troops.

(The direct gas impingment and tiny gas tube of the M-16 family made sense and was worth the risk of extra fouling and perhaps reliability issues, when it was designed with absolute minimum weight as a primary factor, but with the heavier versions we now have, what's the point?)

Barrel length and twist would be optimized for terminal effects. We'd want to do away with the current .223 fiasco with the M4's where we started with 55gr and an excelent 1 in 12" twist from a 20" barrel in the m-16, and wound up with 68gr with 1 in 9" from a 10" barrel in the M4 that now has a very short tumbling range with SS109.

The 6mm bullet design would have a canelure that promotes fragmentation like the SS109, and also has an air pocket at it's tip and a moveable steel core like the Russian 5.45x39 to gaurantee tumbing if it dosen't fragment. The steel core would also aid in penetration in harder targets.

Instead of fancy cyclic rates and recoiling actions like the An-94 or the G-11 caseless to improve hit probability, I would add a quality low-power 2x red-dot sight. It would have a wide field of view, powered by daylight and tritium like the ACOG, perhaps with extra vertical range marker dots calibrated to the 6mm round. Quality iron sights like the M-16's A2 sights would also be permanantly installed so that the scopes backup is not substandard.

Too bad it'll never happen.

 

[BigG]

I think the M16, especially in the A1 iteration is fine for a combat rifle. The beefing up that was done on the A2 in mho would have been better to strengthen the bbl underneath the handguards rather than putting bumps and projections on the receiver.

The M4 carbine is a mistake for most troops. All the value of the high velocity in the 20" bbl is sacrificed for an evil appearance and the collapsable stock, P-U-H-lease.

Why do they always cut the bbl on the M16 for attachment points? Can't they weld on a lug or use a bbl band? Or does that make too much sense? I forgot we are dealing with government specs.

 

[4V50 Gary]

Of course, we could buy those pieces of junk the Brits are carrying. That way if our troops are sent on a "peace keeping" mission we won't be getting complaints about them killing "innocent bystanders." Naw... We want our troops to come home alive and in one piece.

 

[Blackhawk]

How can you reasonably say that when we've lost troops recently in firefights in Afghanistan? And the modern reality of warfare is that we will be facing an enemy with little in the way of fixed installations or resources, and whose primary means of conducting war is through individual action. If anything, the two most important factors we have are intelligence gathering and the ability to put metal onto flesh, i.e. individual combat arms.

We've also lost troops in Hummer accidents, helicopter crashes, and due to a host of other causes.

An accurate, effective battle rifle doesn't provide any protection against incoming AK-47 rounds, which you never know are coming, and you only know were sent your way if they miss-but-not-by-much or hit you or somebody near by.

If YOU have to be in a firefight, what you want is for everybody on your side to be equipped with a light, accurate rifle with a prodigious rate of fire of an effective round of which you have a lot of. That's an M-16.

It's very easy to shoot accurately, and a Marksman with an M-1 or M-14 will quickly become an Expert with an M-16 without being exhausted humping the rifle and combat load. IOW, the girls and soft techno-troops manning the Patriot batteries can effectively use the M-16 if need be, we already have them, they're already familiar with them, and we have the same advantages the less sophisticated enemy has with their less sophisticated AK-47s.

In Vietnam, our tactics called for engaging the enemy in firefights, which was necessary due to the forested and jungle terrain. That's about as bad a combat situation as there is. Due to the technology we've developed during and since then, our tactics are to find and destroy the enemy from afar using airpower. There will be occassional firefights as exceptions, but there's simply no rifle or round that's superior to the M-16 genre available or conceived for front line combat troops.

Unless absolutely necessary, as in WWII, the U.S. does not pit soft bodies against hard targets. If it comes down to street fighting, the hard targets will be destroyed first, then the troops sent in for reconnaisance and mop up. Israel demonstrated those tactics very effectively recently.

Replacing the inventory of M-16s would be analogous to R. Strange McNamara's F-111 boondoggle to replace the Century series fighters with a single airplane. Completely through the '60s and into the '70s, the venerable F-100 was the ground based jet workhorse in Vietnam along with it's MUCH older buddy, the prop driven Douglas A1 Skyraider. The net result would be the same. We wouldn't have anything better, and we would spend $billions not getting it.

 

[BigG]

Well said, Blackhawk!

 

[70-101]

What unit were you with in Vietnam, Blackhawk? I was with the 2nd /502nd.Infantry 101 st.Airborne out of Camp Eagle I consider the AK-47 a vastly superior weapon over the M-16. It's 7.62 mm round was more effective and the Ak-47 was far more reliable than the M-16. which had to be cleaned after each fireing or it would jam. I also consider the M-14 superior to the M-16,I carried the M-14 through basis qualified expert with it,and carried the automatic version of it for 14 month's in germany.The M-14 is far more reliable in adverse weather condition's then the M-16 And always has been, always will be. The M-14 was the most accurate standard infantry rifle the U.S. military has ever issued.

 

[dfaugh]

IMHO

The M-16 pretty much sucks, even with all the recent improvements...

Having said that, probably nothing alot better, not enough to justify huge cost of change..

And, as pointed out, we don't win much of anything w/small arms nowadays

So, while not ideal, I'm thinking we're keeping it

 

[Correia]

A switch ain't going to happen. As Americans we prefer to spend billions on high tech projects, rifles are pretty low tech. And we won't spend money on them unless suddenly they become high tech (OICW).

But imagine for a moment, that instead of saying that the M16 was "good enough" we set out to design the best family of infantry weapons the world has ever seen. We could do it, we have the know how. We have the skills, we have the money. Sure would be nice.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

[The AK-47's] ...round was more effective....

Not according to credible wound ballistics literature. The AK-47 123gr FMJ bullet travels several inches in soft tissues before it yaws. At distances less than 150 yards it produces a mild wound in soft tissues (similar to a .32 ACP FMJ bullet wound) compared to U.S. M193 and M855 5.55mm FMJ fired from a 20" barreled M16 rifle.

IIRC, the Army's Advanced Combat Rifle trials produced no new rifles that were substantially superior to current issue M16A2.

 

[Blackhawk]

But imagine for a moment, that instead of saying that the M16 was "good enough" we set out to design the best family of infantry weapons the world has ever seen. We could do it, we have the know how. We have the skills, we have the money. Sure would be nice.

We've been there, done that. That effort produced the M-16.

Whatever's the "best" today will be obsolete in a little while.

"Good enough" is just fine. The M-16 effort was undertaken because the M-14 was NOT good enough for what we faced in the Vietnam War.

 

[70-101]

Well Shawn

I can only speak from experience,in telling you I was shot in the upper left leg with a 7.62 mm round [the Doctor's told me] when I was in Vietnam. And it knocked me on my back. The only thing I can compare it to, is getting hit with a red hot sludge hammer. And it was serious enough wound that it kept me in the hospital in Pleiku for two week's. And I can Also assure you most of the infantry fighting was done at much closer distance's than 150 yard's. I wish you guy's would speak from experience in some of these matter's,and not place your knowledge on what your read in a book.Because I have found so many "Real World" mistake's in book's and movie's about the Vietnam war that it's sad.But then again,what the Heck do I know, I only fought that stinking war.You guy's are the Real Expert's because you read Book's about the War.

 

[70-101]

This also remind's me of a story.

Last year I was in a local Pizza Parlor waiting to pay my check.They were very busy so I had to wait for several minute's.While I stood next to the bar,I over heard two young men discussing the Vietnam War. After a moment one of the young men said I know all about Vietnam,I saw Platoon And Full Metal Jacket two time's....

 

[Bogie]

Let's just hope that they replace the shortarms...

(cough...)

Think low-tech/existing tech.

Personally, I'd really like to see a "siege/overrun/charlie is in the wire" defense system... Has to be light, and provide excellent fire coverage... I envision a 10 (or more)-barrel .22LR gatling, running in the area of 6,000 rounds/minute. A gun, power supply, and a bleepload of ammo could be in a relatively small package. I suspect that the most limiting thing about the small miniguns is being able to schlep enough ammo... If you've got a bird flying over the line with one "normal" minigun, you're expending a lot of payload of ammo. Give 'em FOUR mouseguns, and you can have more saturation with less poundage.

Sure, it won't have a whole heckuva lot of range, but I think it'd sure keep folks' heads down... Object is to sling lead in a relatively small area, not penetrate vehicles, etc... Likewise, reloadable claymores, using a series of 12-gauge shotgun shells, could be interesting...

 

[Oracle]

I think that the M16/M4 weapons system is good enough, but I think that the M855 ammo should be replaced, at the very least going back to the old M193 ammo. The M855's steel core may penetrate better, but it has much worse wounding characteristics. Why do we need it to penetrate better, as very few forces even issue body armor to their soldiers and we haven't been fighting any of them, and don't really anticipate it? Switch back to the M193 or design a better performing 5.56 round for the M16/M4, and the rifle/carbine will be much more effective.