The US Army still plods forward with the M16.

Well, at least it isn't made in China. In a decade there will be pressure for the export (i. plastic) version of the QBZ-95 to be adopted by the US armed forces.

Pessimism aside. Is the M16 all that bad? If is ain’t broke.

Regards

What ever happened to shot placement? I'm not sure about the Army (Not being disrespectful, it's just different) But in the Marine Corps, marksmanship is alive and well. The Marine Corps is a rifleman's culture and it always bothered me that the Regular Army isn't trained to the same standard.

This isn't an "Ooh-Rah Marine Corps" Post, It's a why the hell are we sending our guys (regardless of service) in harms way with lackluster firearms training post. I know the Army is massive and a logistical nightmare, but the "everyman's a rifleman" motto should be used.

How hard would it be to get a Defoor, or Falla or Vickers type class prior to deployment. At the minimum take a few HSLD BTDT beard & no nametapes types and have em train guys rotating out. This goes for the Corps too. Yeah, It's not hard to hit a static target at 500 Meters with Iron sights with an M16, you could teach a monkey to do it. You need to teach a guy how to shoot , move, communicate, transistion with the proper mindset and fundamentals to keep them safe.

What happens to the terminal ballistics of the round I'm running through doors, walls, auto glass, cinderblocks. How does loosing 4 inches of barrel effect the range and energy of the round since I've only trained on an M16, now I'm getting deployed and I've got an M4.

In all honesty, all soliders wearing an Infantry Tab should be trained to the level of graduating RTB. Marines, well we're just death dealers by nature.

In all seriousness, you're issued the gear that you're gonna get issued, no use in crying over it unless it's getting guys jammed up or killed over bureaucracy. Then it needs to be fixed. I personally see this as a training issue rather than a gear issue.

As far as the Remington contract is concerned, yeah they've come up with crappy quality firearms with their civ rifles (Salty garbage like the R15) But the contract mandates that the m4 carbines be made to mil spec, this means it should be made to Colt's TDP, just like FN did when it was making M16's in the 90's. So Remingtons percieved quality would have nothing to do with the M4's they're making, they simple won't be allowed to screw it up. If they do, by stipulation their contract is dropped through breach.

Originally posted by Mkoll
The M14 and M21 are based on the BAR. The M14 is kind of the exception that proves the rule that the lowest bidder wins though.

i think that your knowledge about the M14 is a little off.

this is from the wiki M14 rifle. just because wiki is the fastest link for me

wiki

The M14 was developed from a long line of experimental weapons based upon the M1 rifle.

also the M14 was made to take the place of several different weapons.

wiki

The M14 was developed as a means of taking the place of four different weapons systems—the M1 rifle, the M1 Carbine, the M3 "Grease Gun" and the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR). It was thought that in this manner the M14 could simplify the logistical requirements of the troops if it took the place of four weapons. It proved to be an impossible task to replace all four, and the weapon was even deemed "completely inferior" to the World War II M1 in a September 1962 report by the comptroller of the Department of Defense.[19] The cartridge was too powerful for the submachine gun role and the weapon was simply too light to serve as a light machine gun replacement for the BAR.[citation needed] (The M60 machine gun better served this specific task.)

also you stated that

but it is just too expensive to outfit an entire army with.

both the army and U.S Marine Corps Used the M14.

wiki

It was the standard issue U.S. rifle from 1959 to 1970.[7] The M14 was used for U.S. Army and Marine Corps basic and advanced individual training, and was the standard issue infantry rifle in CONUS, Europe, and South Korea, until replaced by the M16 rifle in 1970. The M14 remains in limited front line service with the United States Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard, and is also used as a ceremonial weapon. It was the last American "battle rifle" (a term applied to weapons firing full-power rifle ammunition) issued in quantity to U.S. troops. The M14 also provides the basis for the M21 and M25 sniper rifles.

and this was the final price for delivery in 65
wiki

The Springfield archive also indicates the 1.38 million rifles were acquired for just over $143 million, for a unit cost of about $104.[1][2]

there are many articles about the M14, many think that the " bean counter" robert mcnamara and some other had a stake in switching over to the M16. macnamara is viewed by many as a cheap sob and making many bad decisions, in regards to what was best in doing the job.

when the M16 first came out many marines fought tooth and nail to keep their M14s. [[

Originally posted by usmc0311
I personally don't like the 5.56/.223 round as is is not that effective against physcos who are drugged up. I have seen men take 4-5 rounds and still keep on coming.

physcos, like zombies require head shots. ever see a zombie running around with a busted melon.


i think the tumble effect of the 5.56, would make scrambled gray matter.

reply to post by Wolf321


The 6.8 is based on the .30 Remington and requires a good bit more more than a new barrel. It also reduces the magazine capacity by 5 rounds, assuming the magazines would be the same size as the M4/M16.

All of the variations weigh more per standard loadout simply because the bullet weights are roughly doubled, roughly a pound more per 110 rounds for 124gr vs 62gr bullets.

The advantage of the 6.5 MPC over the others is minimal cost per conversion with significant improvement in performance, which makes it the most likely to be adopted [if any of these are actually considered].

reply to post by pteridine


Do you have the ballistic data for the 6.5 MPC, preferably in comparison with the other current and proposed rounds? It's been a while since I saw the data on its own, but I don't recall it being better than the 6.8. I could be wrong though. I remember something about having the same amount of powder pushing the larger projectile limited its capability.

Originally posted by Wolf321
reply to post by pteridine

 

Do you have the ballistic data for the 6.5 MPC, preferably in comparison with the other current and proposed rounds? It's been a while since I saw the data on its own, but I don't recall it being better than the 6.8. I could be wrong though. I remember something about having the same amount of powder pushing the larger projectile limited its capability.

sskindustries.com... has some ballistic data. The 6.5 is less powerful than the 6.8 but is still better than the 5.56 at distance and for penetration. My position is that the cartridge which requires the least modification to existing firearms has the best chance of being adopted. The only change required from the 5.56 on a M16 platform is the barrel. The others require barrel, bolt, and magazine changes.

The Grendel ballistics are at sskindustries.com... and the 6.8 SPC are a velocity of 2650 with a 115 gr bullet from a 16.5” barrel. sskindustries.com...

I had the A1 when I was in Basic, it was the ONLY time I had issues with jamming, and I'll agree with an earlier poster; it was probably the mags. When I got to my duty station, I went out and bought 6 mags on my own dollar, and every time I went to the range, I NEVER had a problem with jams or double feeds. I ALWAYS kept my weapon in tiptop shape, I wish I could have gotten more range time, we really only went to the range for annual qualification.
I like the M16 family, I dont see an issue with them whatsoever.

An expensive change over to a weapon that is only marginally better probably isn't the right thing for the military to do. compared to AKs a scoped or holographic sighted M4 is more effective in just about every way. So why spend billions on a changeover now when the advantage is yours already? Why not wait until something far better comes along? I would like to see something added at the squad level. Maybe one 7.62 rifle for some range and penetration needs. Of course that creates a logistics issue, and the likely chance of an oddball rifle with no ammo half way through a fire fight.
I like the modern options available in the M16. You can do the M16 for open country type stuff, or the M4 for airborne, tanker, urban situations. The modern sights have made the rifle so vastly superior to the clunky old AK that they aren't even in the same league anymore.
Also, we see from this decade of war that the military is capable of quickly implementing new hardware when they see a good enough advantage to warrant it. If they saw a big advantage in something else it would be in the field at least in limited numbers. I'm reminded of WWII when there was a plethora of arms in common hands: M1, BAR, M1 carbine, Thompson, etc.

Originally posted by Erectus
An expensive change over to a weapon that is only marginally better probably isn't the right thing for the military to do. compared to AKs a scoped or holographic sighted M4 is more effective in just about every way. So why spend billions on a changeover now when the advantage is yours already? Why not wait until something far better comes along? I would like to see something added at the squad level. Maybe one 7.62 rifle for some range and penetration needs. Of course that creates a logistics issue, and the likely chance of an oddball rifle with no ammo half way through a fire fight.
I like the modern options available in the M16. You can do the M16 for open country type stuff, or the M4 for airborne, tanker, urban situations. The modern sights have made the rifle so vastly superior to the clunky old AK that they aren't even in the same league anymore.
Also, we see from this decade of war that the military is capable of quickly implementing new hardware when they see a good enough advantage to warrant it. If they saw a big advantage in something else it would be in the field at least in limited numbers. I'm reminded of WWII when there was a plethora of arms in common hands: M1, BAR, M1 carbine, Thompson, etc.

You will get some argument about the 'marginally better' comment with respect to 6.5mm and 6.8mm. That said, I expect that any improvements will be made in the 5.56mm ammunition, such as 72 and 77 gr bullets which will have enhanced terminal ballistics and penetration due to increased sectional densities. With green tip penetrator versions, additional performance increases can be expected but the overall lengths would reduce powder capacity putting limits on velocity and chamber pressure.

Originally posted by kneverr
reply to post by KilrathiLG

 

Friend, yes I know about the examples of the exoskeletons that you listed and yes, we may see a limited amounts in 10-15 years but not as Wertdag suggests.

Wertdag stated: "No point in even moving any further with conventional ballistic weapons for basic infantry. Personal railguns and lasers are only a few years away."

To say that the US military has "no point in moving any further with conventional ballistic weapons for basic infantry"; as if we are at the point of replacing "basic infantry" firearms with "personal railgun and laser guns", is ridiculous.

Again, yes the military is experimenting with very large ship mounted electromagnetic railguns which draw massive amounts of power to fire even a single shot and are still years away from full deployment, if at all.

Never mind the fantasy that we are at the point of replacing basic infantry's conventional firearms for Eraser movie type personal railguns.

edit on 24-4-2012 by kneverr because: link

Actually the FEL laser system could be mated to a Tank powered by a small nuclear reactor.That is recent tech thats just coming into the fielding phase of deployment on the front lines(for the navy currently with 2 operational in the states for ABM defense already) If soldiers had miniature nuclear reactors on their backs like in Ghostbusters then you might just see a soldier able to slice tanks and troops in peices before long.

reply to post by pteridine


Personally the 6.5mm and 6.8mm are answers to a question that no one has asked, sure the 6.5 has a great BC and can be fired accurately out to 1000 yards, but when was the last time a line troop had a firefight at 1000 yards?

You might bring up A-Stan, ok how about using fire and maneuver with squad level DM's or using the assets you have (STA platoon). In addition I'm sure you understand the variables involved making a hit at that range. Not to mention the lack of terminal ballistics data on the 6.5 and 6.8. We have decades worth on the 5.56 and half a centuries worth on the 7.62.

The 5.56 will be here to stay until there is another revolutionary evolution in intermediate rifle cartridges , something marginally better won't cut it. I think the money would be better spent on properly training troops on weapon systems we currently have.

As far as changing from the M4/M16 family, the same goes as the 5.56. There will have to be a weapons system that substantially outperforms it (and come in around the the current systems per unit cost) Example: the FN SCAR16, very cool looking weapon, super controllable on FA but unfortunately it doesn't do much that an M4 doesn't do better (discounting maritime ops due to the piston) and it costs more.

I'm about to stir the hornets nest, but if you want to get rid of a weapons system... let's DRMO the M9 and get back into the 1911.

reply to post by EyesWideShut


I agree that the M16 system will not change without some watershed development, such as the programmable assault weapons firing smart projectiles. The SIG is purportedly a better weapon under certain conditions but the costs make it a poor value for general issue. The economy, modularity, reliability, and large inventory of the existing system make it nearly impossible to displace as long as man-carried projectile weapons are issued to front line troops. The same can be said of the AK variations [which moved from the 7.62x39 to the 5.45x39.] Neither need to be fixed.
As far as the 6.5/6.8 vs 5.56 issue, I think that the complaint is not so much longer range but barrier penetration and knockdown at close to intermediate ranges. If that is the case, the heavier 72/77 gr 5.56 bullets with penetrator inserts may solve the barrier problem. If it is desired to go to the larger diameter bullets, the 6.5 MPC will be the likely candidate, simply because it would only require barrel replacement. Bolts, magazines, and lowers would remain unmodified because the 5.56 is the basis for the MPC. The competition would be between the best version of the 5.56 in the M16/M4 with the best version of the 6.5 MPC in the same platform that would address the issues. If the 6.5 MPC showed significant improvements, it could be adopted across the entire 5.56 weapons suite with mainly barrel replacements, greatly reducing transition costs and time.

ETA: As to the M1911, that won't happen for general issue either. A well made, heavy, all steel .45 isn't in the cards, especially since we are still tied to NATO which uses the 9x19. Europeans like the 9mm and make a good case that it is sufficient for what it is required to do; personal defense as a secondary weapon. When that ends, I can see polymer pistols, probably in .40 rather than .45, should the need to have issue handguns continue...and when the large inventory of the Beretta's are depleted. That would also require another costly changeover and pistols are not a pressing issue with the DOD.

Personally, I don't see changes anytime soon, especially given the state of the economy.

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
reply to post by pteridine

 

I'm about to stir the hornets nest, but if you want to get rid of a weapons system... let's DRMO the M9 and get back into the 1911.

I would like to see a change over to the full size Springfield XD's. I have one myself and I would have loved to have had it in combat. I would also prefer a .45 round as apposed to anything smaller but I beleive if this were to happen they would go with.40 as many letter agencies and LEO's already shoot that caliber.

reply to post by usmc0311


Why the heck would you rather see the troops carry a plastic gun made in Croatia over a steel gun made in the USA?

[snipped]

We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou
reply to post by usmc0311

 

Why the heck would you rather see the troops carry a plastic gun made in Croatia over a steel gun made in the USA?

[snipped]

We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

edit on Fri Apr 27 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)

I would be fine with a good 1911. I am just a fan of the XDs that's all.

Things have become very specialized, with respect to military rifles. There is a rifle for just about every situation, not like when we had one Service rifle, Sniper rifle, and a Shotgun. The thing about the AR is that they are easy to maintain, parts readily available, and parts are easily changed/repaired. The cost is about $600 for a "standard rifle." I have an AR-15 and I like it, cheap to shoot, great for "Urban situations", you can easily customize it, and it was fairly inexpensive to purchase. So, what's the big deal, not too long from now, machines will doing our fighting and there will only be limited involvement by humans (Boots on the Ground). I see the most likely scenario is that an attack or war would be over before any humans could be mobilized.

reply to post by EyesWideShut

You might bring up A-Stan, ok how about using fire and maneuver with squad level DM's or using the assets you have (STA platoon).

If I had a squad in Afghanistan right now, I would want one M-14 DMR rifle per fire team to be able to pinpoint targets out in the hills with more effectiveness than just an M-4 or M-16 with an ACOG.

reply to post by pteridine


I don't believe the 6.5 or 6.8 are only marginally superior. Ballistically, I think they are clearly better. I believe that ballistically they are better suited for combat than the 5.56.
By marginally better I meant in terms of total combat effectiveness gains versus money needed to refit. While they are ballistically better there will be some trade offs in recoil and either weight or combat ammo load. I think these factors may diminish somewhat the ballistic gain. When the dollars are considered it just doesn't seem worth while to make a change now.
It does cross my mind that I'm advocating not using a more effective (and thus troop saving) weapon because it wouldn't be a big enough improvement to justify the change.

I think we're most likely not going to see any change until the US military is ready to roll out it's Case Telescoped or Caseless ammunition program they are working on with the LSAT. For those that haven't heard of the LSAT program it's a two tiered program where they are developing case telescoped ammunition (see explanation later in post) and Caseless ammunition as well as a new belt fed LMG to fire them. Below are descriptions of the technologies being worked on.

Case telescoped ammunition: Case telescoped ammunition is like normal ammunition only more compact. I'm including a picture of a cutaway 40mm case telescoped round next to a normal 40 mm round so you can see the difference. As you can see from the picture a case telescoped cartridge squashes the projectile down into the casing and has the powder tamped down tightly around the base of the shell.




and this is the LSAT ammo in mockup format.

Caseless Ammunition: and caseless ammunition is ammunition with no brass or polymer casing ... basically the propellant and primer is bonded to the bullet . The example I've shown you is from the HK g11 project because it's visually very different than cased ammunition.




The LSAT wiki states that they are considering an intermediate cartridge weight in the LSAT program. So who knows we might see a case telescoped 6.5 mm round that weighs a little less than the current 5.56 rounds in the near future.