It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Furure for current ballistic weapons?

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 08:47 AM
Is there actually a future for the bullet firing weapons of today? well this question arises from the seemingly slow progress of todays weapons. such as one that is rather prominent, the US M16A2 rifle. i have always wondered what is seen in such a weapon, which has been around for over 40 years now. it seems to me that it needs a replacement soon and by that i mean a new weapon, not just another fix of the current. unless i am wrong the M16 has, instead of fixing the problems that it has such as frequent jamming and the need for constant maintenance, simply had functions that fix the problem when it happens. though this may seem fair enough it is rather pathetic how they stick to this old fashioned weapon. such projects as the XM8 has been created to replace it but of cause it was canceled.

what i want to know is if there is going to be any projects that will create systems to better improve the existing ones such as more usings of caseless ammunition such as the H&K G11, which was also canceled.

posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 09:40 AM
Damn right, the M16 is dead and buried, you know. I suppose the M4 is gonna replace it, even if the difference is very slight. Even if there are "better" weapons on the market, the M4 has the same advantages than the m16, allowing IR scope, grenade launchers (among other things) and lots of joyful enhancements to be put on the original weapon.

Some people are gonna talk about the new HK or other futuristic weapons, but their use is too conventionnal. Try to add a grenade launcher on that kind of weapons, you'll see.

Personally I thin,k the best weapon could be a mix between the M4 and the HK, simpler of use and better for accuracy.

posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 07:16 PM
how about the G36? that can mount a grenade launcher. not to mention that it comes in many versions so suit many different scenarios, such as the M16 and the M4. personally i think the G36 is over looked and should be considered more often. saying that such weapons as the FNC are more overlooked and never even heard of by most, though I'm not sure what attachments it can have. still better than the M16 though

posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 05:38 AM
I think that development is more based around non-infantry weaponry now (as in, missiles and the such) rather than a gun that fires a bullet. (I don't know how reliable the G36 is? but i'd assume it's pretty reliable).

In any case, i'd bet on that they're more focused on missiles and the such, especially since I saw a video on liveleak showing a missile that would airburst in front of an artillery cannon, but only blow holes in very small specific areas.

Quite odd, it almost seemed to be a sniper missile

[edit on 11/3/07 by -0mega-]

posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 12:02 PM
The G36 sucks. I have had extensive experience with this rifle and it just sucks. The handguard breaks and cracks, it`s not as accurate as the M-16/M-4/AR-15. The XM8 was just a G-36 with new clothes. The M-16 works. All of this jamming and unreliability crap comes from Vietnam with the old M-16 and the crappy powder they used in the ammunition. The next US service rifle will be an M-16 with a gas pistion and a rail system. The SOCOM guys will be getting the FNH SCAR rifle.

posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 12:04 PM
The best infantry rifles IMHO are the M14, The Steyr AUG, and the SIG 550 series.

posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 02:15 PM
Actually I've carried the M-16 much more recently than Vietnam, and it really is tempermental about dirt. A certain amount of maintenance required is expected in any weapon of course- I can cope with cleaning a weapon 5+ times a day. What I can't cope with is knowing that if in the course of a fight my weapon gets the least bit of mud on it for any reason, I'm gonna have to spend 30-60 seconds dedicating both eyes and both hands to fixing it rather than not getting shot.

With the M-16, it pays to be completely anal-retentive about learning how to keep that thing completely off of the ground while low-crawling and hitting the deck, because if it happens to have rained and you don't do that, you'll be able to make the bolt stay back without locking it.

That's the only thing I ever really liked about the AK- if you screw up, it might forgive you.

On the other hand, what are you gonna do? You can have a weapon that you can treat like crap or you can have a weapon that puts the round right on target.

posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 02:40 PM
I disagree with you there Vagabond, you can have something you can abuse and still put rounds where you need them. That rifle is the M-14.

[edit on 23-3-2007 by killswitch1982]

posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 04:16 PM
A gun NOT made of plastic? Surely you jest! Next you're going to tell me that bullets were meant to kill, not wound.

Actually I've always wanted an M-14 from everything I've ever read about them, but living in California- meaning that the little-known "void where prohibited" clause of the second amendment gets in my way. Being dirt broke half the time isn't helping either.

posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 04:50 PM
My M1A has a little plastic on it, but most of the stock is aluminum...I`ve got it in a SAGE EBR stock, HEAVY but worth it.

My US made AUG clone is going to be in 6.8SPC, but with 5.56mm NATO stuff as well for cheap range fodder.

posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 01:11 PM
Sadly enough i have never fired an m16 in my life, so i cant really judge it from my experience. But i still have an opinion based on what people who actually used it told me and what ive seen by myself. And what ive personally seen last year in some report from Bagdad was a marine on some intersection carrying an AK. Now im sure hes got absolutely nothing against his beloved m16 but the thing is, with desert storm season in full swing, that rifle was just better off on a little hook somewhere back at the base.

posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 02:22 PM
I personally believe its time the 5.56mm and 5.45mm rounds are dead and buried.

Eugene Stoner the creator of the M-16 did not like the 5.56 round and favored larger rounds like the 7.62 which he first designed his gun around. Mikhail Kalashnikov creator of the AK-47 never liked and still does not like the AK-74 5.45mm round. He favors a modern version of the AK-47 7.62 and blames the US adoption of the smaller round for making the soviets follow suit.

Two of the greatest assault weapon makers of all history did not like the overpowered pee shooter bullet. That should tell you something.

This overpowered .22 concept came about at the same time Vietnam era US eggheads assumed x bullets fired equal y kills. Use smaller rounds you can carry more bullets, thier logic seemed flawless in their own minds.

The future IMO is something along the lines of the 6.8 SPC

posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 07:11 PM
hmh. bullet weapons and their future? their future stops when
somebody figures a better way to kill/stop people. (yey)

this is what we use.. nothing fancy 7.62 round and umm.
well it gets the job done.

we could have gone to the 5.56 caliber but that just can't
cope in our enviroment. dense forrests, hills, that kind of stuff.

the good sides of the smaller caliber doesn't support our
military doctorine aither.

what comes to the future.. the bullet based weaponry
will stay long. unless you happen to have plasma rifle
in your back poket? lol.

the desing will be chancing dramaticly i think.
hand held metalstorm would be one example.

[edit on 25-3-2007 by Lempo]

top topics


log in