M16 to be history? - Page 2

AR-15 » AR Discussions

AR Sponsor:

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - M16 to be history? (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 5/17/2005 7:47:02 PM EDT

[#1]

I noticed that the article was written by a German, but edited by one of their staff. I wonder if he has any stock in H&K? Most of their quotes came from H&K reps, they were acting like Georgia's economy would suffer and H&K would go bankrupt without the XM-8's acceptance.

They have glowing reviews on everything they write about, half our dues go to Chapstick..Nice pictures, though..

In the same magazine, they do a side-by-side comparison of all the electronic optics used by US troops, they didn't have anything bad to say about any of them. What really floored me is that they "handlapped" the barrel of the M4 they were using in the tests...

They also had a neat article on the 6.8 Remington cartridge, but they were acting like it was going to replace 5.56mm any day now, just like the XM=8 was going to replace the M-16...What really threw me off was the praise that was heaped on the XM-8 with it's 12.5 inch carbine barrel and the 9" SMG barrel, while the 6.8mm article was bitching about the 14.5" M-4's lack of stopping power with a 14.5" barrel.

Posted: 5/18/2005 6:39:35 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
The only thing that will replace the M16 is a rail gun. IE magnetic propulstion

Those are a long way from seeing a full-scale military production. Last I readon those they couldn't come up with a powers source that didn't outwiegh the guy carrying it in order to propel the projectil at enough speed to do any serious damage. Those things are energy hogs.

If anything you'll see them vehicle mounted long before you see them as a man-portable weapon system.

Quoted:
Even the beloved Colt 1911 went wayside to the Beretta M9. But when all said and done the venerable Ma Deuce and B52 will still be alive and kicking

Yeah, but people seem to be trying to push for a return of the 1911 to replace the M9 due to its apparent lack of stocking power... Does that mean 15 years after the M16/M4 platform has been phased out by some new fangled POS that the troops will be screaming to bring back what worked better before?

Posted: 5/18/2005 3:37:30 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The only thing that will replace the M16 is a rail gun. IE magnetic propulstion

Those are a long way from seeing a full-scale military production. Last I readon those they couldn't come up with a powers source that didn't outwiegh the guy carrying it in order to propel the projectil at enough speed to do any serious damage. Those things are energy hogs.

If anything you'll see them vehicle mounted long before you see them as a man-portable weapon system.

I have read about one that looked like a big black box with something like 50 barrels. It was completely computerized and was theoretically able to take out large convoys of troops and equipment with 1 million rounds per minute rate of fire. Each projectile was stacked in front of the other in the barrel. The sensors in the barrel would tell the computer which one was next and then the computer would program the bullet to the specific range and number of intended targets or something along those lines.

I agree that a power source is the main issue but we aren't that far from it though. Technology is light-years beyond what it was just 20 years ago. As soon as a safe efficient power source is totally devolved it will happen

Posted: 5/18/2005 4:32:59 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
I have read about one that looked like a big black box with something like 50 barrels. It was completely computerized and was theoretically able to take out large convoys of troops and equipment with 1 million rounds per minute rate of fire. Each projectile was stacked in front of the other in the barrel. The sensors in the barrel would tell the computer which one was next and then the computer would program the bullet to the specific range and number of intended targets or something along those lines.

I know exactly what you're referring to but I'm having a hell of a time finding the damn thing. I'm not so sure that was based on "railgun" technology though... need to do some searching.

Posted: 5/18/2005 4:41:23 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
I believe that there is enough desire for our American servicemen to be using AMERICAN weaponry

Belgium is America?

Posted: 5/19/2005 6:00:19 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
They also had a neat article on the 6.8 Remington cartridge, but they were acting like it was going to replace 5.56mm any day now, just like the XM=8 was going to replace the M-16...What really threw me off was the praise that was heaped on the XM-8 with it's 12.5 inch carbine barrel and the 9" SMG barrel, while the 6.8mm article was bitching about the 14.5" M-4's lack of stopping power with a 14.5" barrel.

With a couple of exceptions, every article and review which I have read or seen [R. Lee Dumb Dumb in Mailcall] has done the same thing. Makes you wonder how much Junglian Collective Unconsciousness is going on out there.

Posted: 5/19/2005 7:02:37 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe that there is enough desire for our American servicemen to be using AMERICAN weaponry

Belgium is America?

The FN Herstal manufactured M16s are an AMERICAN design, made by AMERICAN union workers and staff in factory that is located in AMERICA giving AMERICANS jobs. It's a government requirement. If Belgium became an enemy of the United States tommorow, we would still have the factories, tooling and staff/workers. Production of this distinctly AMERICAN rifle would continue unabated.

So yes, they are in fact American weaponry.

Posted: 5/19/2005 7:06:35 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe that there is enough desire for our American servicemen to be using AMERICAN weaponry

Belgium is America?

The FN Herstal manufactured M16s are an AMERICAN design, made by AMERICAN union workers and staff in factory that is located in AMERICA giving AMERICANS jobs. It's a government requirement. If Belgium became an enemy of the United States tommorow, we would still have the factories, tooling and staff/workers. Production of this distinctly AMERICAN rifle would continue unabated.

So yes, they are in fact American weaponry.

+1

Posted: 5/19/2005 9:10:39 AM EDT

[#9]

Let me stir the pot up a little bit with my opinion (of course you know what they say about opinions and a-holes).

I believe there will be no real reason to replace the M16 series for at least 10-15 years. The weapon system works well for a general purpose weapon, similar to the Garand in years past (it was used from 1937 until the early 70's). Easy to shoot accurately, easy to take apart, and reasonably reliable. There are enough other weapons available to fill in the spots where it lacks - mainly the M-14 for distance-shooting (similar to the Dragunov SVD's role) and the AK for heavy-bullet/limited distance work like urban warfare (and extreme enviroment duty, also). I think the AK probably fills the biggest detriments of the AR system for the type of combat the US currently finds itself in. And there are plenty of AK's in use in the sandbox right now.

Posted: 5/19/2005 11:31:37 AM EDT

[#10]

The day we see US troops carrying issued AK's... I weep for that future. The only way I see that happening is if our troops are also wearing blue helmets.

Posted: 5/19/2005 3:25:01 PM EDT

[#11]

MILKMAN DAN IS THE BEST PART OF THIS THREAD!!!

Posted: 5/19/2005 3:33:36 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
The day we see US troops carrying issued AK's... I weep for that future. The only way I see that happening is if our troops are also wearing blue helmets.

Quite a few were issued to our soldiers in Iraq - I'm sure many tabled their M4's unofficially if an AK came along. I have a friend who is contemplating going over there as a security contractor. - an AK would be his issue weapon he was told. My only hesitation with an AK for combat would be the safety - but even the M16/AR15 safety system is less than stellar as far as reachability and swing.

Posted: 5/19/2005 3:56:31 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The day we see US troops carrying issued AK's... I weep for that future. The only way I see that happening is if our troops are also wearing blue helmets.

Quite a few were issued to our soldiers in Iraq - I'm sure many tabled their M4's unofficially if an AK came along. I have a friend who is contemplating going over there as a security contractor. - an AK would be his issue weapon he was told. My only hesitation with an AK for combat would be the safety - but even the M16/AR15 safety system is less than stellar as far as reachability and swing.

Almost all carrying AK's were assigned a pistol by their MTOE and had no M4 to table. An AK beats an M-9.

The AR/M Safety is the best going.

Posted: 5/19/2005 6:31:36 PM EDT

[#14]

I believe PMCs are the only ones that are assigned an AK-type rifle.

Posted: 5/19/2005 6:44:03 PM EDT

[#15]

You won't see US armed forces issued AK's. Never happen.

Posted: 5/19/2005 6:45:31 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quite a few were issued to our soldiers in Iraq - I'm sure many tabled their M4's unofficially if an AK came along.

Source?

I'm pretty sure there isn't a soldier in this country's Army that isn't sent out of the US without an issued weapon. Some jobs (like certain counter-intel jobs) are only issued an M9... and it's generally because they aren't in a tactical unit (but instead a strategic unit) when they get deployed. If they are
"issued" an AK over there it's probably for a short period of time, maybe in a convoy or something.

Outside of circumstances like that it just doesn't make sense. US soldiers are "raised" on the M16-platform. That is where their weapon proficiency lies. Most US soldiers have never even touched an AK and would have no clue how to use it, let alone how to use it effectively.

Posted: 5/19/2005 7:02:50 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quite a few were issued to our soldiers in Iraq - I'm sure many tabled their M4's unofficially if an AK came along.

Source?

I'm pretty sure there isn't a soldier in this country's Army that isn't sent out of the US without an issued weapon. Some jobs (like certain counter-intel jobs) are only issued an M9... and it's generally because they aren't in a tactical unit (but instead a strategic unit) when they get deployed. If they are
"issued" an AK over there it's probably for a short period of time, maybe in a convoy or something.

Outside of circumstances like that it just doesn't make sense. US soldiers are "raised" on the M16-platform. That is where their weapon proficiency lies. Most US soldiers have never even touched an AK and would have no clue how to use it, let alone how to use it effectively.

Here is an interesting story in the Sacramento Bee

www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/story/978295p-6862352c.html

Posted: 5/19/2005 7:32:38 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The only thing that will replace the M16 is a rail gun. IE magnetic propulstion

Those are a long way from seeing a full-scale military production. Last I readon those they couldn't come up with a powers source that didn't outwiegh the guy carrying it in order to propel the projectil at enough speed to do any serious damage. Those things are energy hogs.

If anything you'll see them vehicle mounted long before you see them as a man-portable weapon system.

I have read about one that looked like a big black box with something like 50 barrels. It was completely computerized and was theoretically able to take out large convoys of troops and equipment with 1 million rounds per minute rate of fire. Each projectile was stacked in front of the other in the barrel. The sensors in the barrel would tell the computer which one was next and then the computer would program the bullet to the specific range and number of intended targets or something along those lines.

I agree that a power source is the main issue but we aren't that far from it though. Technology is light-years beyond what it was just 20 years ago. As soon as a safe efficient power source is totally devolved it will happen

This is what you are looking for.www.metalstorm.com/
This is a bad ass system and it will be something to deal with in the future possibly.
You all should check out the site and video clips. The round count per second is incredible and can be of your choice. It is designed for vehicle mounting but since the last time I visited the site I see they are making Hand Guns now.

Posted: 5/19/2005 7:45:38 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
This is what you are looking for.www.metalstorm.com/

That's cool but it's not what I thinking of.

Posted: 5/19/2005 7:49:14 PM EDT

[#20]

Metalstorn intoduction video

Posted: 5/19/2005 7:52:29 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Here is an interesting story in the Sacramento Bee
www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/story/978295p-6862352c.html

Now I've heard it all.

Wow... thanks for the source... and that's f*cked up. If Bush still had my support prior to this article it just went flying out the window. WTF happened to the first $8 billion that was given to the "soldiers" in Iraq? Did they spend it on staplers and pens? If our guys don't even have weapons then I've pretty much lost all hope for this administration.

I understand they have gone into this war somewhat unprepared in the sense that they expected to fight in their traditional roles and they didn't foresee a need for rifles for every tanker and such, but as soon as the issue had been addressed that should have been the end of it.

Tha fact that our guys actually like the AK is kind of sadening... I guess because I'm such a die-hard fan of the AR/M16-platform. But if they find it works better then more power to them. Makes enough sense based on the issues of availability for ammo and all.

I guess the cool thing about it would be they probably don't need to worry as much about accountability for those. If they lose it... oh well. It'd be like disposable battle rifles. Use it up and toss it.

Posted: 5/19/2005 7:55:00 PM EDT

[#22]

Remember, you are reading an article written by the main stream media. Beleive it at you own peril.

Posted: 5/19/2005 7:59:44 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Here is an interesting story in the Sacramento Bee

www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/story/978295p-6862352c.html

The article specifically states
"Normally an armor battalion is fighting from its tanks. Well, we are not fighting from our tanks right now," Young said. "We are certainly capable of performing the missions that we have been assigned, there's no issue with that, but we do find ourselves somewhat challenged."

"Young doesn't carry an AK but has fired one. He's considered banning his troops from carrying AKs, but hasn't yet because "if I take the AK away from some of the soldiers, then they will not have a rifle to carry with them."

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:02:18 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Hey variablebinary like it or not the Marines are using the L&W M4s in the field and before that 3 years of design and testing and frequent visits by the military,They already have a RAS for it not made by knights and before that 40,000 rounds with out cleaning.......so like it or not I think its gonna be the next design upgrade for the M4...we shall see.

Which units? Are there any "Victor" units using it at all? Or is this a syscom/MCWL lab item (which by their charter they buy experimental things that are nothing more than that). I would doubt it is even at the MCTAE level for unit testing

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:10:07 PM EDT

[#25]

EM gun on the brink of fruition for land and sea applications

EM gun on the brink of fruition for land and sea applications

After more than two decades of research, the science and technology behind electromagnetic (EM) rail guns has now advanced sufficiently to allow practical exploration of novel military applications, according to Dr Harry Fair, director of the Institute of Advanced Technology (IAT) at the University of Texas (UT).

Speaking at the IQPC Future Artillery 2005 conference held in London in March, he told delegates that in the field of pulsed-power supplies, capacitor technology can now be considered mature, but still requires an excessive volume for land applications. Pulsed alternators are therefore emerging as the preferred option at relatively low risk and (particularly in the context of a ship) ensure a very large volume magazine. For shore bombardment, the high terminal velocities achieved allow small kinetic-energy penetrators to put as much energy on target as larger explosive-filled projectiles and at greater ranges.

The US Navy is initiating what Dr Fair characterised as "a significant science and technology programme for ultra long-range artillery", noting however that "gun life and high-acceleration tolerant guidance, navigation and control (GNC) will be critical issues". He added: "When successful, EM guns will provide overwhelming lethality and significantly improved survivability and logistics at unprecedented ranges."

UT-IAT has devised a common low-cost projectile concept for both naval surface-fire support and army non line-of-sight (NLOS) engagements using an EM gun launcher. It has a flight mass of 15 kg and contains either multiple kinetic-energy flechettes or a smaller number of sub penetrators made of tungsten. In its naval guise it has a muzzle energy of 64 MJ; a muzzle velocity of 2,500 m/s; a maximum range in excess of 500 km and an impact velocity of 1,600 m/s. From a more size-constrained land tactical platform it would be expected to have a muzzle energy of 20 MJ; a muzzle velocity of 1,400 m/s and an impact velocity of 700 m/s out to ranges in excess of 100 km

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - M16 to be history? (Page 2 of 2)

AR-15 » AR Discussions

AR Sponsor:

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us