Originally posted by tvdog
I've heard this "wait for 100% improvement before we replace the M-16" theory many times.

I think the reason why the US army did not replace the M-16 earlier was because they wasted time and money pursuing the ACR concept.

When that folded neatly in their faces, they went on another dubious project with the OICW. And then while researching the OICW they try to justify this dubious project by saying that they will develop the 5.56 part of the OICW into a proper weapon on its own as a replacement for the M-16.

This project, the XM-8, turns out to be nothing more than a HK G36. The American taxpayers are once again fooled, and the troops will be getting a expensively reinvented G36. This technology is about 20 years old.

What 100% improvement do you see here?

The XM-8 is anything but revolutionary - don't let the curvy shape fool you.

The XM-8 is pretty old-tech when you put it alongside the AUG, Tavor, FN F2000, SAR-21, to name a few.

So, the XM-8 is nothing more than a by-the-way project, a by-product to justify continued spending on the OICW, and is nothing more than a repackaged G36.

This is what the US army is getting 30 years later. I'm not saying the XM-8 is not going to be a fine weapon, it's just not something that needed 30 years. This should've happened LONG before they gone and look at ACR and OICW concepts.

Alright, so the hk g36 is old tech compared the the Aug? The AUG went into service in the mid 70's and the g36 wasn't even developed until the 90's. Hell, the AUG wasn't even all that revolutionary- it put together a few concepts that other guns have had for a while. For instance the bullpup design was around some 30 years before.

Yes, the XM-8 is a heavily repackaged g36, but that's still nearly 100% improvement over any m-16 variant. Its also built on proven reliability.

I agree that we should have gotten something better sooner, but nothing better had been developed or pursued.

In addition, I belive the army has even stated that this xm-8 is an interim weapon, but I have to double check that.

No one ever misled anyone in trying to get people to think the xm-8 is a totally new weapon. it has been said many times it is an update of the hk G36.

Originally posted by elmariachi
Alright, so the hk g36 is old tech compared the the Aug? The AUG went into service in the mid 70's and the g36 wasn't even developed until the 90's. Hell, the AUG wasn't even all that revolutionary...

Yes, the XM-8 is a heavily repackaged g36, but that's still nearly 100% improvement over any m-16 variant. Its also built on proven reliability.

I didn't say the AUG was "revolutionary" - you did.

The XM-8 is "nearly 100% improvement over any m-16 variant"? I have no doubt the XM-8 will be much better, but 100% better?

Didn't the Washington sniper use an Ak-47? I'm Canadian, so I don't pay a lot of attention to Yankee news, but I thought I heard that somewhere.

Id use m16 cuz its military goodie. Better than ak 47. but also, the Ak was in the book of world records as the most widely used firearm

I think the better gun is ak. the ak-74 in particular. it has the same reliability as the 47 with a more lethal bullet. the russian 5.45x39 is betterthan the American 5.56. when the 5.45 hit soft tissue it tumbles which obviosly does ALOT of damage. the m-16 might be better for target shooting but in war i would stick with the good ole ak. and by the way the gun rattles because mikail kalashnikov gave the parts room to breath not because they are cheaply made(even though they are)

oh yah... i wouldnt choose either of those.. ide either use the AK-105 or the M4a1-M203... much better guns..... (m4 is basicaly a upgraded m16...)but if i could only choose 1 of those 2 ide get the M16A3 with the m203 gernade launcher and a silencer(if there is a silencer that can be fitted ) a scope would be nice to but that would even increase the weight more.. so i would leave that out...

and frankly I have my concerns about it. I believe that its strengths are not nearly as relevant as it's weaknesses. The M-16 would be my ONLY choice for fighting on a grassy plain or in taking an airfield, but if there was ANY dust, any exposure to moisture, ANY vegitation, and ANY constricting terrain, I would be a lot happier with a reliable 7.62mm weapon like the AK-47.

The advantage of the M-16 is ergonomics and precise design which make it deadly accurate out to 550m (point targets... aka people). That's for a stationary target in an open field though. A moving target in the woods or brush of any kind is tough, because the little 5.56 round has less energy which makes it more subject to the influence of wind. It is also DESIGNED to pigeon-toe and change direction on impact, which means contact with any vegetation will ruin your accuracy. This essentially nulls the M-16's advantage in most terrain, and is the reason that most combat takes place at 300m and less.

The disadvantage of the M-16 is that precise clearances in the weapon make the interference of dust, water, dirty, or rust (rust forms VERY easily in the field) a major factor. During the crucible, after my first run on the assault course, I realized that my weapon would probably jam if I attempted to fire it. During the night assault course I was EXTREMELY careful to keep my weapon out of the dirt, and I was horrified at how much it slowed me down, just to keep my weapon in firing condition. Many recruits had to clean their weapons for at least 5 minutes before they could fire at the reactive targets. I also noticed that quite a few who qualified "expert" failed on the reactive targets- proving the difference between the range and the field.

The AK-47 has better stopping power, and it can take more abuse. You can take cover with the AK-47 and not have a heart attack if you land in the mud. And at 300m, the AK-47 IS accurate... maybe not to blow the nuts off a fruit fly, but enough to greatly reduce the life expectancy of a jihadist. If you factor in that the M-16 might be dirty and that there may be vegetation in the way making M-16 rounds pigeon-toe, the AK-47 may actually be MORE accurate at 300m. 300m is what counts because that's where most combat occurs, and that (actually 250m) is where you can pin the enemy down and take him out with the M-203.

I have heard rumors about a plan to produce a 6.3mm version of the M-16. I could be mistaken as to the calliber or the rumor may not be accurate. that would make a difference, but the M-16 would still be too fusy about maintance for the real battlefield. Maybe there's a "gear queer" (no offense) somewhere who can tell me more about this, and if in fact this is the M-16A4 that i've heard rumors about? (supposedly accurate on point targets to 800m... although i've already discussed the reality of such claims).

(look at what happened to Jessica Lynch- poor weapons maintance, secondary to being a gaggle of nasties, turned prospective @$$-whoopin reservists into dead reservists... but if they'd had AK-47s, only their cowardice would have stood in their way.)

EDIT:
Kozzy is dead-on for both points.
5.56 NATO rounds tumble also, and they are an awful thing to be wounded by. It does however have a major problem- the low mass means less energy, which means lower effectiveness at longer ranges. The problem would be even greater for the 5.45x39 round, which is of course smaller.

The M-4 is an M-16 carbine with a rail system for attatchments like the M-203, a shotgun, a flashlight, etc. It shares 84% of its parts with the M-16, just as it shares the reliability and stopping power complains that were prevalent in Afghanistan. Both required cleaning up to 5 times daily in the worst conditions, and it was not uncommon for 3 bullets or more to be necessary for a kill, according to SOF magazine.

[edit on 21-6-2004 by The Vagabond]

All this talk about AKM being not accurate, and the M16 (A2 or the A4 for that matter) being not reliable, is just BS. Any person that have actually fired an assault rifle (be it an AKM or an M16) will tell you, that if you can't hit a human sized target at the range of 150-300 meters, you don't belong near the gun..

Originally posted by ak boy74
I think the better gun is ak. the ak-74 in particular. it has the same reliability as the 47 with a more lethal bullet. the russian 5.45x39 is betterthan the American 5.56. when the 5.45 hit soft tissue it tumbles which obviosly does ALOT of damage. the m-16 might be better for target shooting but in war i would stick with the good ole ak. and by the way the gun rattles because mikail kalashnikov gave the parts room to breath not because they are cheaply made(even though they are)

Actually the AKM has a more leathal bullet, that is one of the reasons why most of our SpN operators often stick with the good old AKM.

Originally posted by KozzyThe 5.56mm bullet fragments much better then the 5.45x39, which also has a shorter range.

The 5,45x39mm has more stopping power, and a lower recoil.

regards,
kaskad

[edit on 21-6-2004 by kaskad]

You're exactly right about accuracy at 150-300m. Like I said, it just doesn't make a difference in REAL combat. A bow and arrow is relatively accurate for the distances at which combat occurs.

You're exactly wrong about dismissing the reliablity probelms of the M16A2. Again, like I said, I carried that weapon in the field and if you aren't down-right PARANOID about your handling and care of the weapon, it will jam when you need it to fire most. I don't care if you stand still and let me put the barrel in your mouth... if it don't go boom because it's a fussy weapon, I'm in trouble.


I don't presume to know much about ballistics, but I have heard quite a bit (without even persuing such comments to heavily) that several various russian munitions are poorly designed and not all that they could be ballistically.

i thought the M16a3 or m4a1 threw m4a3 had or atleast one of them had the jamming problems fixed... im pretty sure the m4 is.. cause im pretty sure its one of the weapons the seals use... and it would have to be able to take punishment from water/dirt/etc.. with out jamming.. or atleast harder to jam...

The AR-15 and its variants are much more accurate than the AK class of weapons. If it were the other way, we would be seeing a lot more AK weapons in the Camp Perry Matches. There aren't. We shoot a Communist Bloc match under the same rules, scores are much lower, and the winner invariably is using the old Mosin-Nagant.

As far as which is more lethal, that is a moot point. Both weapons were not designed to kill, but to maim. Kill an enemy soldier, you have taken one out of the fight. Wound an enemy soldier and you have taken two or three out.

Sticking to the thread..
A choice between the M16a1 and an AK47, definetly the M16 was junk when it was first issued, and most combat troops in Viet-Nam those that had a choice disgarded their M-16 when ever they could for their loyal M-14, or the old 30 cal. carbine or other older WWII vintage weapons.

On the battlefield, there are specfic things you want to concider.
The length of your op and your opponents. Essentially you can carry only so much ammo as a basic load, so battlefield recovery becomes an issue.
Historicly the average fire-fight lasted 3-5 minutes (in RVN field on missions, not camp sieges) on full auto the M-16 can through a banana clip (30 rounds in what approximately 1 minute or less, where as the Ak is still firing.
Parts are inter-changeable with an AK-47, not so with an M-16.
The sound of the M-16 and AK-47 firing are distinctive and so American troops firing AK-47's may help disquise your unit tactics .. but you better know who is who before you engage them.

Cyclic rate of fire .. the M16 has a higher rate hence you run through your ammo quicker, the 556 round tended to bounce off of relatively light obstacles (small limbs of trees and even thick bush (a problem in RVN) where as the 7.62 run tended to penetrate better.

Durability is always a factor in any field weapon, the old 9 mm Styer wasnt a bad one (cheap, functional, simple and lightweight.

Today however there is are so many to choose from, I'm in the middleast and work with mutli-national force and the HK G-36 is a popular weapon amoung the europeans, Amercians of course stay with the M-4 and modify it as their units allow them to, indig usually pack the AK-47 or one of its variations.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
You're exactly wrong about dismissing the reliablity probelms of the M16A2. Again, like I said, I carried that weapon in the field and if you aren't down-right PARANOID about your handling and care of the weapon, it will jam when you need it to fire most. I don't care if you stand still and let me put the barrel in your mouth... if it don't go boom because it's a fussy weapon, I'm in trouble.

I have never fired any of the AR15/M16 series of rifles, but from what I have heard from some people, the M16A2 is not as bad as most people think it is, I mean, after all, it has been in the service for over 19 years now, and if it was that bad, then it would've been replaced some time ago.
Just my 2c.

I don't presume to know much about ballistics, but I have heard quite a bit (without even persuing such comments to heavily) that several various russian munitions are poorly designed and not all that they could be ballistically.

I'm not really sure what you are talking about, but most of the rifle munitions (5,45, 7,62mm) do a pretty good job out to 300-400meters.

The Vagabond you sound like someone who just got out of basic training in the army. I say this in your referance to the Night Assault Course and if this is so I think you know very little if anything on the performance of the M16 series of weapons since the M16A2 you were issued was as I stated about mine "well used." You have to realize that that weapon was used by any number of people who either did or didn't take care of the weapon. Yea, mine was a pain in my ass as well in rapid fire moods such as three round burst and rapid single fire situations and on the night fire course "SPORTS" was in great use as I tried to empty a 30 round mag in under three minutes.
The weapon I was issued in my unit though once I got there was a brand new M16A2 that I had no problems with at all in my time there. I would shoot it would hit and target would drop......that simple. As I stated as well my brother who served in the 101st AAD as well used an M4 and had nothing bad to say about it and told me before I got my personally owned M4 that it performed well in the field. I as of yet have not had any problem with it in field situations either though by my nature I am very clean with my weapons to the point I will clean the barrel of my Tippmann Pro-Lite, paintball gun.
As well your statement about the accuracy of the AK and the M16 is unfounded out to those ranges. I personally get better accuracy out of an M16s peep sight than I do the AKs notch and post. though that point is that both rounds will make it that far and again this is from personal experience. As for the other person AK boy while I am on this topic learn about weapons before you say something since the 5.56mm NATO round is supposed to do the same thing as well in that it will tumble when it hits soft tissue. Why they are having problems I will address farther down.
As for your statements about Jessica Lynch didn't they find her weapon still in the Humvee? If so how can the weapon be a reason? Once again I feel the need to state that the weapon is only as good as the person shooting it. I as stated own a Tippmann Pro-Lite that is now seen as an obsolite paintball gun when put up against full autos and such. I can still hold my own with it even against people that have guns that are technologically better. Why do you think that is?
As for who said somethign about the SS109 round (Green Tip) I have just finished reading something on this. Unlike you I don't get my news from "Soldier of Fiction." The problem with this round is that it is designed to be fired through body armor normally worn by Russian soldiers and obviously if you are firing a round designed to do this of course when you fire it at a skinny body without armor it is going to go right through. In "Shotgun News" they were stating that rather than change to a larger round it would be better to do as the Russians did with the 5.45 round and conform it to the enemy that you are fighting. The rounds being used in Chechnya are the same size as those used in Afghanistan but they have been altered to fire at a higher or lower rate fit the targets being fired at for maximum effect.
In the end to those who don't know me I do personally own both an M4, 16" barrel, and a Romanian SAR3, 5.56mm NATO AK74 variant, and both are good weapons. Again though a weapon is only as good as the person holding it.