Replacement for the M16

Spectre wrote:

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.

Well how about a MP5A4 OR A M4A1?

navyseal1000 wrote:Well how about a MP5A4 OR A M4A1?

The M4 is already a standard issue weapon. We are talking about replacements for this weapon, so I am not entirely sure what you are getting at by suggesting that. And the MP5 is a 9x19mm, and occasionally can be found in the 10mm caliber, which was made for the FBI. It is therefore a submachine gun, and is not what is being asked for either. What we are suggesting are replacements for the standard issue M16 and M4 rifle, not something made to suit another purpose. The MP5 is not effective at range, nor is the caliber particularly suited to taking down armored subjects.

Spectre wrote:

navyseal1000 wrote:Well how about a MP5A4 OR A M4A1?

The M4 is already a standard issue weapon. We are talking about replacements for this weapon, so I am not entirely sure what you are getting at by suggesting that. And the MP5 is a 9x19mm, and occasionally can be found in the 10mm caliber, which was made for the FBI. It is therefore a submachine gun, and is not what is being asked for either. What we are suggesting are replacements for the standard issue M16 and M4 rifle, not something made to suit another purpose. The MP5 is not effective at range, nor is the caliber particularly suited to taking down armored subjects.

Well this thread is tough to answer... I say the Scar, only thing I can think of

The SCAR is a good alternative. I believe Paul was telling me that the Rangers are already using it as their standard rifle, so I would very much like to see something like that put into use in the rest of the military.

Spectre wrote:The SCAR is a good alternative. I believe Paul was telling me that the Rangers are already using it as their standard rifle, so I would very much like to see something like that put into use in the rest of the military.

Oh really? hmmmmm....... What about the Kriss I think that is supposed to be a good field weapon.

navyseal1000 wrote:

Spectre wrote:The SCAR is a good alternative. I believe Paul was telling me that the Rangers are already using it as their standard rifle, so I would very much like to see something like that put into use in the rest of the military.

Oh really? hmmmmm....... What about the Kriss I think that is supposed to be a good field weapon.

If you are referring to the KRISS 45ACP, then we encounter the same problems I brought up about the MP5. The KRISS fires the 45ACP round, which is a pistol cartridge, thus making it a submachine gun, and not a practical replacement for a rifle due to its ineffectiveness at range. Pistol rounds are inherently ineffective in ranged combat because they have much lower velocities than rifles do. The KRISS would only be effective in close combat, and then only marginally so if your targets were wearing body armor, because, due to it's lower velocity, it is not particularly adept at penetrating said armor.

Its a .45, even if they have body armor they are going down, especially if they take multiple hits.

|337 wrote:Its a .45, even if they have body armor they are going down, especially if they take multiple hits.

Agreed. Yeah the Kriss wouldn't be a bad gun for mid distances. I would go out on the field with one.

|337 wrote:Its a .45, even if they have body armor they are going down, especially if they take multiple hits.

Not true. A 45 ACP does not always have to kinetic energy to penetrate body armor, even with multiple shots.

Yeah, but even if it doesn't penetrate the body armor you wont be standing. I.E. Broken ribs, lack of air in lungs, general discomfort etc etc.

|337 wrote:Yeah, but even if it doesn't penetrate the body armor you wont be standing. I.E. Broken ribs, lack of air in lungs, general discomfort etc etc.

Yes to an extent, however, adrenaline and increased dopamine levels caused by high stress situations allow the human body to withstand significantly more trauma than it normally could, albeit, for a limited time. So a .45 cannot always be relied upon to drop a person, although it is more reliable than something like a 9x19mm. It is for this very reason that Police departments and federal agencies are constantly looking for better and more powerful handgun calibers. For example, GA state patrol recently switched to .45 GAP instead of .40S&W because it provides more power. You may think this just defeated my argument about the .45, however, most of the "perps" that are encountered by your average police officer are not wearing body armor, in which case the .45 is very effective. Another example of high powered handgun ammunition is the .357 SIG which is currently in use by the Secret Service and Treasury Department. It provides a similar amount of kinetic energy as the .357 Magnum round while being more controllable.

In the end, pistol rounds are just not reliable enough when facing opponents in body armor.

All of that being said, we do seem to be drifting way off topic from this threads intended purpose.

|337 wrote:Yeah, but even if it doesn't penetrate the body armor you wont be standing. I.E. Broken ribs, lack of air in lungs, general discomfort etc etc.

Agreed X2. Get em 337

navyseal1000 wrote:

|337 wrote:Yeah, but even if it doesn't penetrate the body armor you wont be standing. I.E. Broken ribs, lack of air in lungs, general discomfort etc etc.

Agreed X2. Get em 337

As I said, try to remain on topic. We are not here to discuss the merits of the .45 ACP. If you want to do that, create another thread and I will happily prove my point to you there. That being said, the human body can withstand significant trauma when under extreme duress, IE getting shot. Broken ribs or getting winded is not a guarantee of putting someone down. There are any number of military personnel and LEO's who can attest to this. Just ask one before spouting off things like that. A .45ACP is not guaranteed to put someone out of commission, especially if they are wearing body armor. Why do you think pistols are called sidearms? They are a secondary weapon.

The XM8 was a good design, why not bring it back?

Im a huge fan of the 417 and would certainly support the 416 entering service. However, with all of the new rounds recently developed it would seem now is a good time to begin testing them if not fielding one. Why not publish a list of requirements for your dream round and have ammo manufacturers see what they can come up with. Then design a rifle using the 416 firing mech or try a bullpup configuration based on this new round. That way you get exactly what you want.

That being said shorten the BAR and bring it back. BAR FTW

Spectre is 100% correct about the pistol vs. body armor question. Hell, there are even stories of enemies taking 5.56 center mass (with no armor) and still fighting, as well as a rather horrifying story I heard from an instructor at my school about a vietnamese man who had his arm ripped off by a sniper rifle round still fighting with the other arm. In that extreme situation your body will not register the amount of damage done to it, its fight or die, and you instinctually have a preternatural ability to push through incredible pain to survive. That being said, that part of the discussion is OVER.

The XM8 was a cool design, I'm not sure why it was put out of service, I heard that the material that the body was made out of just didn't last through all of the stress test requirements, but that was from an unreliable source (some kid at the chow hall)

Thank you Paul. As for the XM8, I will do some more research through some of my channels lol and get back to you.

IIRC, the XM8 was one phase of the OICW project. The military never intended it to be a standalone rifle, but instead they split off the two parts of the OICW (20mm grenade launcher and 5.56mm rifle) so they could have dedicated teams working on each part in order to get the wieght down. In the end, the XM8 was never able to meet the wieght timetable requirements, and the OICW project was scrapped.

But in my opinion, the OICW was a stupid idea to start with. Just another example of the military refusing to update because they want something lightyears ahead of anything else, and as a result, we're stuck using something that should have been replaced years ago.

True to an extent, but I will have some things to add to that at a later date. Something does need to be done about the current weapons platform, there is no doubt about that. The XM8 was not a bad design, it was just too much too soon.

You know...there are no great 100% no problem weapons. I liked the OICW Project, but it was ahead of it's time (i.e.- AUG). I heard that the body was sort of flimsy, and melted from the heat of barrel when fired a lot (approx. scirmage time) (heard from gossip).

I think the m16 needs to be replaced by this..


http://www.lwrifles.com/Products/M6A2/tabid/70/Default.aspx

and /or this



http://www.lwrifles.com/Products/PSD/tabid/87/Default.aspx

They're both just down-sized m4s with different stocks. Its not a replacement just a slight modification

Airsoftguy238 wrote:They're both just down-sized m4s with different stocks. Its not a replacement just a slight modification

No, the first one has a short-stroke gas system and is available with several different length barrels/rail systems. Which would definately be an improvement. We just need something without DI, and we need to adopt PMAGS.

+1 Most of the jams I have experienced are the result of poor magazines.

Did not noticed the different gas tube