Replacement for the M16

Haha Admin Im feeling some resentment here! Just kidding, but it shouldn't matter how old the rifle is, look at it this way. The AK-47 fires reliably at ANY age, as will the M14, as will the SCAR, as will the 416. What happens when you enter a conflict that has been waged for 5 years and you still have your issue rifle or your resupply only has those old rifles? Then you are screwed! All Im saying is, much better, reliable, and cleaner modes of operation in weaponry are available, and I feel that the military should invest in them, seeing as I will be using these weapons to protect my own life soon enough. I mean, my rifle may be old, but its not covered in sand and caked in mud like it would be in the battlefield.

The AK-74 fires the 5.56. I really don't think that would be a bad gun for us. It's very reliable, not too expensive, and will last a long time. Biggest problem is we can't use the same magazines as the M4.

WPeake23 wrote:The AK-74 fires the 5.56. I really don't think that would be a bad gun for us. It's very reliable, not too expensive, and will last a long time. Biggest problem is we can't use the same magazines as the M4.

5.45*

I personally don't like the ak guns. Sure it's reliable and cheap, but it's not as sturdy in the actual firing. (don't want to get into a ka vs m16/4 debate just my opinion) You also have to consider what is thought of when people see the ak. Granted that's not a good basis to judge a gun on, but if we are talking about U.S. military the higher ups wouldn't like to see it.

NJSC wrote:I personally don't like the ak guns. Sure it's reliable and cheap, but it's not as sturdy in the actual firing. (don't want to get into a ka vs m16/4 debate just my opinion) You also have to consider what is thought of when people see the ak. Granted that's not a good basis to judge a gun on, but if we are talking about U.S. military the higher ups wouldn't like to see it.

1

I know just what you're talking about. Thats why I don't think they will even think about it.

I am not a fan of the SCAR and never will be. I just don't like it.

The 416 is a superior weapon IMO. It is made by H&K so it should be quality. It has the same basic feel as an M4/M16, so there is no new learning curve, and it is reliable and accurate. It is arguably one of my favorite rifles currently on the market.

Personally, I would be content to see the military field the Barrett M468. It fires a nice beastly 6.8 calibre bullet that has plenty of kinetic energy and excellent stopping power. I realize this would mean they would need new ammo as well, but this is a well rounded bullet that can function in many different scenarios. It has range and stopping power. The weapon itself is also based off of the M4 M16 platform and would not have a sharp learning curve. It would be a good alternative IMHO.

Another 416 fan!!!! SWEET!!!!

Spectre wrote:
The 416 is a superior weapon IMO. It is made by H&K so it should be quality.

H&K 416.
Made in Germany. You know the Germans always make good stuff.

But I would like to see something in 6.5 Grendel. Like 6.8, but it works at long ranges. 6.8 is only better than 5.56 at close ranges.

+1 on the 416

Plus, with the 416, you can just buy the uppers and put them on the old lowers.

Aggressor Dog wrote: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.

The DOD replacing both weapons and ammo for the entire military is not as far fetched as you would think. If they are american made guns and bullets it would fly through the approval process just to say that the government is putting money back into our economy. I think they should go back to a thompson style .45 sub machine gun. great rof with some stopping power. 50/100 mag drum capable. They just need to fix the jamming. carry a .45 pistol and you have interchangable ammo.

ATLAS wrote:

Aggressor Dog wrote: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.

The DOD replacing both weapons and ammo for the entire military is not as far fetched as you would think. If they are american made guns and bullets it would fly through the approval process just to say that the government is putting money back into our economy. I think they should go back to a thompson style .45 sub machine gun. great rof with some stopping power. 50/100 mag drum capable. They just need to fix the jamming. carry a .45 pistol and you have interchangable ammo.

Thompson Drum mags fell out during combat with alarming regularity.

ATLAS wrote:The DOD replacing both weapons and ammo for the entire military is not as far fetched as you would think. If they are american made guns and bullets it would fly through the approval process just to say that the government is putting money back into our economy. I think they should go back to a thompson style .45 sub machine gun. great rof with some stopping power. 50/100 mag drum capable. They just need to fix the jamming. carry a .45 pistol and you have interchangable ammo.

Truth, it would not be all that difficult for the military to switch ammunitions, in such a case as you stated if it were made by an American manufacturer and distributor. Especially if it were to prove a far more effective round.

Twitch wrote:Another 416 fan!!!! SWEET!!!!

Yessir, I love the 416 with all my heart. It is a beautiful weapons platform. And I also love pretty much everything German. Things are just better there.

Atlas, we doo need some American weapons. Magpul/Bushmaster Masada/ACR, and the TDI Kriss .45 instead of a Thompson. Recoils like a 9, hits like a .45.

I do know that the U.S. Army Rangers already use the SCAR as their standard issue assault rifle at present, so I guess that is one step in the right direction.

I would agree that we should use more weapons from American manufacturers, however there is still nothing wrong with contracting out to a foreign company, if they have a proven platform and superior reliability.

I don't think that it will happen and don't really want it to happen but I'm just gunna thro the g36 out there. You can do anything u want with them by changing out the barrels and such: cqb (g36c), close to mid range (36k), mid range (G36), lmg (mg36), plus dmr (sm8). Its basically a blank slate and H&K means dependability and accuracy.

BigD wrote:I don't think that it will happen and don't really want it to happen but I'm just gunna thro the g36 out there. You can do anything u want with them by changing out the barrels and such: cqb (g36c), close to mid range (36k), mid range (G36), lmg (mg36), plus dmr (sm8). Its basically a blank slate and H&K means dependability and accuracy.

You have very valid points about the modular capability of the G36, however, it does have a different feel, and breaks down differently from the M16 and its subsequent variants. My knowledge on the matter is somewhat limited, but from what I have been told, the military would like to remain with something that is similar to the M16 because that is what most of the soldiers are currently used to and they do not want current soldiers to have to "relearn" and get used to a new weapons system.

That being said, I would very much like to see something new and innovative. Or something proven such as a G36. Perhaps they could adopt the Tavor. I am a fan of bullpup designs because they grant the user a lot of versatility on the battlefield. You have a shorter weapon that still has the same range and accuracy and a standard rifle. What a fantastic concept.

I believe the a new weapons platform could be phased in, much like what is currently being done with the Israeli military and the introduction of the Tavor. All of the new soldiers are being issued with the Tavor upon enlistment, ergo they are already used to it when they are placed on the battlefield, while the "old guys" are still using the M4s and M16s. I believe this would be a fantastic way for your G36 idea to be phased into common usage. While it may not be likely, it is a good idea.

Another potential replacement for the M16 would be the LWRC IAR and the LWRC SRT. Both are reliable weapons based off of the M4 platform, however they operate in a slightly different manner from the M4. They operate more on the basis of the 416 which makes them more reliable. They also cool down much quicker, and remain cooler longer when under heavy fire. Both are easier to maintain, and as I already said, more reliable than the current issue M4.

Also throwing the Magpul Masada in there for consideration. It's flexible and reliable. Look it up on youtube, there is a future weapons segment on it, if you want to know more.

I would like to see the Stubby M4s if they make them.

navyseal1000 wrote:I would like to see the Stubby M4s if they make them.

They are fairly impractical for the most part as they are not very versatile.

Yeah I can't imagine going onto the battlefield with a weapon as short-barreled as that. Youd really have only one capability, pure CQB, as well as the fact that its still going to be the same poor impingment system that the M16 series uses right now.

Aggressor Dog wrote:Yeah I can't imagine going onto the battlefield with a weapon as short-barreled as that. Youd really have only one capability, pure CQB, as well as the fact that its still going to be the same poor impingment system that the M16 series uses right now.

Exactly, it solves none of the problems that are currently facing soldiers now, and actually introduces a few new problems into the equation, namely ranged accuracy and lack of versatility.

Aggressor Dog wrote:Yeah I can't imagine going onto the battlefield with a weapon as short-barreled as that. Youd really have only one capability, pure CQB, as well as the fact that its still going to be the same poor impingment system that the M16 series uses right now.

It would be a CQB weapon. If I were to pick a field weapon, I would go with the Scar or the new Kriss.

navyseal1000 wrote:

Aggressor Dog wrote:Yeah I can't imagine going onto the battlefield with a weapon as short-barreled as that. Youd really have only one capability, pure CQB, as well as the fact that its still going to be the same poor impingment system that the M16 series uses right now.

It would be a CQB weapon. If I were to pick a field weapon, I would go with the Scar or the new Kriss.

Yes, but there is no need to have a weapon that only performs a CQB function when a carbine sized weapon functions well in both ranged combat and CQB scenarios. An exclusively CQB weapon becomes a waste of money at that point.