Replacement for the M16

The Military is thinking about switching out the Colt Arms M16-pattern assault rifle for a newer design. I just wanted to know, what would you guys like to see the military field?

Personally I'd like to see the SCAR or the 416 put into service. They both have the same feel and breakdown as the Colt Arms M16, so familiarization would be a breeze, and they fire the 5.56, which is lightweight and easy to handle (although lacking in power) and despite what people have to say it has served well so far, and realistically there is no way the military is about to incorporate at new bullet into the system at this point so I'm going to stick with the realistic calibers here. The U.S. Army Rangers (blessed be thy name) already incorporated the SCAR into service with great success, so I suppose Id like to see the SCAR put in. Plus, the SCAR also features a variant that fires 7.62 for that bigger punch. But, as a good friend of mine always tells me at the end of these arguments, "What is the Army going to replace the Colt arms m16 with?....hmm...Im going to have to say the Colt Arms m16" Which, is probably true.

Hmm, yeah I'd probably have to say the SCAR. It's a good all purpose rifle. Having two caliburs is definatly an advantage. But honestly I dont think the M14 would be a bad choice either.

Something chambered in 6.8 grendel.
But in all reality, I don't think that the US Army will go for something other than a rifle chambered for a STANAG round.
I vote SCAR. It's a nice weapons system with a much better gas system than the M16. Also, in addition to the 7.62 NATO varient, there's also going to be a versoin chambered in 7.62x39, which could be good for special operations when you don't want to leave behind a NATO cartridge shell.

Thats an interesting fact about the SCAR that I didn't know...
About the M14, the M14 is extremely heavy, as is the 7.62 round. You can't carry near the same amount of ammunition in 7.62 as you can in 5.56, as well as the fact that the M14 is both unergonomic and heavy. Its performance is excellent none the less, it has an amazing grouping at 800 meters and is famed to be as reliable as the AK-47, but there is a reason they were phased out in the 60s.

Well, the Colt Arms M16 is a great rifle, doesn't pack much of a large punch (it packs more of a knock the breath out of you, than making you fall). The 5.56 Bullet is too small. 7.62 is a bit powerful, hard to control recoil. The 6.8 SPC (Special Purpose Cartridge) is pretty neat round that I would like to see more development in. Unfortunately the US wants to use all NATO Rounds (6.8 isn't one). The SCAR and 416 are much too expensive, but great rifles. If cost wasn't a factor the HK416s would be awesome (5.56 NATO, its downfall). At the 2009 Shot Show there was MR556 (Civi version of the 416). .50 Cal Beowolf=Win for CQB

Socom and others are fielding the scar now.

FN Scar, HK 416, or the Magpul M8

HK 416, or the 417 if you really want to pack a punch.

I agree with the HK 416, its a solid gun and you would not have to retrain your infantry to use it.

I believe HK offered to sell the only the uppers to lower costs and the dod declined unfortunately

ya but all of them use the 5.56 nato round and many say that when enimies are hit by it they dont even feel it and keep on fighting untill they bleed to death the 6.8 round is very interesting but is not that effective a long ranges it is mainly a close courters round. but yes the scar is very good and socom is using now

But the 417 fires the 7.62 NATO, while the 416 fires the 5.56.

Hold on a minute, like I said, I can almost guarantee the military won't be switching rounds. Its a stretch in itself to say that they might switch rifles, but in all realism, there is just no way the military is going to spend that much money rearming their entire combat-arms units to carry new rifles PLUS new ammunition. The 5.56 isn't all that bad, its lightweight, accurate at long ranges, and doesn't give nearly as much recoil as other bullets. While a new round may be in order for the future, as better and better body armor is becoming readily available to enemies of the U.S. making the leap to another bullet is just not going to happen, especially with the budget cuts that are soon to come.

I found some articles that are very interesting. Apparantly, the US Army had an "Industry Day" in November where different arms manufacturers came out to show off their carbines.
I see that Bushmaster displayed the ACR, which is the latest incarnation of the Magpul Masada. That's a really neat weapons system.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/11/army_carbineday_112308w/
http://www.militarytimes.com/multimedia/photo/replacing_the_m4/

sniper2525 wrote:the 6.8 round is very interesting but is not that effective a long ranges it is mainly a close courters round.

That's where the 6.5 Grendel comes in. It's got the teminal ballistics of 6.8 at close range, but it maintains those ballistics much further, while keeping recoil at around the same.
But I agree with Agg.Cand. in the fact that we won't be switching rounds for a long time.
Darn NATO... Back in the old days, we used to be able to switch ammo every time we got a new rifle.

I'd like to see the Barett M802 50 cal, or maybe a G36 varaint.







Incase you didnt know i was kidding about the barett

We need to arm all of our infantry men with GAU-8s. Only then will we conquer the crab people and the Zutonian ruler of the fifth cybernetic dimension.

The military goes for the principle of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" and an example would be the Browning M2 .50 cal which has been in service for around 90 years. The M4 and M16 sure has its flaws, but not bad enough that it should be replaced yet. Also, I think that no production gun yet really has the "groundbreaking" capability to be replaced for the military. There are guns that are better than the M4 and M16 but not by much.

I found an intresting link comparing the M4, XM8, HK416 and FN SCAR.

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/wdc/military_rifle/index.html

Agg.Cand. wrote:We need to arm all of our infantry men with GAU-8s. Only then will we conquer the crab people and the Zutonian ruler of the fifth cybernetic dimension.

As a former GAU-8 mechanic I'll give a weapons troop "woot" to that one! We should throw in the GAU-2 as a sidearm!I hate freakin crab people!

The GAU-8 is a pretty sweet weapons system.

Here's another article I found: http://www.military.com/news/article/armys-subcompact-rifle-search-in-doubt.html?ESRC=dod.nl
seems that they'll begin the "Offical" search for a new carbine by mid-summer.

Well, as long as it doesn't use the direct impingment system Im OK with it. On my promotional FTX after I went through two magazines my M16 kept on jamming over and over again. I went through 210 rounds and jammed something like 8 times, thats more than one jam per magazine used. I completely missed out on a defensive firefight on my patrol base when I raised my rifle to fire and *click* , jammed. I had to spend almost two minutes (3AM, pitch black, frozen fingers) prying out a trashed shell from the chamber, and when I was operational again we were moving off the patrol base. So I was effectively out of that entire defense, due to the uniform unreliability of the M16. So yes, the M16 is a "broken" and defective rifle in my opinion. Anything that I can be sure will fire when I squeeze the trigger will do it for me.

Aggressor Dog wrote:Well, as long as it doesn't use the direct impingment system Im OK with it. On my promotional FTX after I went through two magazines my M16 kept on jamming over and over again. I went through 210 rounds and jammed something like 8 times, thats more than one jam per magazine used. I completely missed out on a defensive firefight on my patrol base when I raised my rifle to fire and *click* , jammed. I had to spend almost two minutes (3AM, pitch black, frozen fingers) prying out a trashed shell from the chamber, and when I was operational again we were moving off the patrol base. So I was effectively out of that entire defense, due to the uniform unreliability of the M16. So yes, the M16 is a "broken" and defective rifle in my opinion. Anything that I can be sure will fire when I squeeze the trigger will do it for me.

I think that your guys might get crap/defective/flawed weapons to use, but I don't know.

Looking at this again, I highly doubt we will replace the M16/M4s with anything soon, so lets just hope Colt starts building them with a gas system similar to HK's.

The AK-47 is a good weapon system, but 7.62 is a little too big. I also don't think the ARMY will give the smallest thought to it.

WPeake23 wrote:The AK-47 is a good weapon system, but 7.62 is a little too big. I also don't think the ARMY will give the smallest thought to it.

7.62x39 isn't that much bigger than 5.56, but it's crap at long ranges.

Ha reconsniper you are probably right about us getting the crappiest rifles they can throw at us.

Aggressor Dog wrote:Ha reconsniper you are probably right about us getting the crappiest rifles they can throw at us.

That way, you'll shut up and stop complaining when you get newer M16's that only jam once in a while.