Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/22/2003 2:11:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2003 2:12:50 PM EDT by gunnar]
story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=4&u=/ap/20031122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_goodbye_m_16

Think HK's new one is in the works? Or will the govt. stick to our own 'US based design'?

Gunnar
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 2:16:18 PM EDT
Key word, MAY.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 2:26:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Buey: Key word, MAY.
View Quote
Very observant and very correct. MAY !!
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 2:32:24 PM EDT
This isn't a 'BASH' session on the AR - I own 'em and love 'em. However, I think there's going to be a change. The 5.56 will stick around (logistically it's sound). But, the AR design is old and has reached a pinnacle in design (no one asked, but that's my take on it). I expect changes - changes that will probably cause an uproar. Who's to know, I'm not an expert and don't pretend to be one. But, change is always a constant. Thanks for the replies! Gunnar
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 2:34:28 PM EDT
They are talking about the M16A2, guys, not the AR platform. The M16A2 will be phased out eventually as there really is no need to keep it. It's a mechanized world, boys, and I can tell you from experience that the M16A2 is a b*tch in mechanized and urban warfare.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 2:35:21 PM EDT
we always plan for the last war. the gist of this article was that its hard to get out of a Humvee or Bradley with a full size rifle. They were talking about using the M4 carbine as the standard issue for a bit. I still think the AR platform is sound, but I would like to see a 6mm or 6.8mm cartridge.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 2:47:45 PM EDT
I don't care what they use, but they better not phase out our ability to have over 10rds.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 3:08:40 PM EDT
6mm, please. :) That would be AWESOME in a M4 package!!!!
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 4:40:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2003 4:41:08 PM EDT by Mb121]
They are listing the M4 Carbine as semi/auto, last time that I checked the M4 Carbine was semi/burst and the M4A1 Carbine is semi/auto. Only SF and Rangers get the M4A1 or am I missing something and the M4A1 is now general issue to standard line units with M4's? Because this sounds like another case of the media being idiots and not getting facts right.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 4:59:30 PM EDT
Instead of the M-16, which also is prone to jamming in Iraq's dusty environment, M-4 carbines are now widely issued to American troops
View Quote
It is now viewed as an interim solution until the introduction of a more advanced design known as the Objective Individual Combat Weapon, or OICW.
View Quote
I thought the OICW was out of the running. Are they applying the accronym to another rifle?
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:02:21 PM EDT
There are so many shit errors in that article, I could fertilize the north forty. My cat could have done a more accurate job.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:05:13 PM EDT
XM8 propaganda marches on...
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:16:19 PM EDT
It said the M-4 is replacing the M-16. This is like saying the 1911A is replacing the 1911. It is the same weapon just handier.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:21:37 PM EDT
LUMPY IS RIGHT ON THE MARK.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:41:41 PM EDT
Well it looks like we are getting the XM8/turd!! I guess we will just have to polish our turd until it works. FREE
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:46:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FREEFALLE6: Well it looks like we are getting the XM8/turd!! I guess we will just have to polish our turd until it works. FREE
View Quote
Does it make a RATTA TAT TAT sound when you fire it? [;)]
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 8:10:45 PM EDT
freefall, you have used US Army weaponry in a warzone/desert/blazing hellhole. According to what you have experience, do we need to change? Do you think that this new XM-8 ( which I think is almost laughable ) presents enough of an improvement to justify a change?
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 8:39:33 PM EDT
Jesus, like I'm really going to accept the words of an AP writter named SLOBODAN LEKIC when it comes to the future arms of the US Military. That's like saying, "Hey guys, Jose Gomez from the Peru Daily Planet just wrote that Chevrolet is dumping the Corvette from their lineup."
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 8:52:26 PM EDT
I desire an XM8. Obviously, the production rifle won't be that goofy orange color. That is, if it gets to production. ~AbM
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 10:22:07 PM EDT
Based on past history, some Montana and NJ Guard units still had trapdoors in their armories until WWII, Some units still have M-14s and the venerable 45s are finally seeing their "last" hurrah now, I guess we will see M16 variants for a long time.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 10:26:36 PM EDT
The M4 i was issued was safe/semi/auto, but that was in the Cavalry. In the infantry i think they were burst capable, but the 203 i had to lug around may have been different than the rest...
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 12:30:31 AM EDT
"Iraq will be the final nail in the coffin of the M-16". I found that to be interesting. I would like to hear more combat feedback on the M-14 in Afghanistan/Iraq.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 12:31:05 AM EDT
"Iraq will be the final nail in the coffin of the M-16". I found that quote to be interesting. I would like to hear more combat feedback on the M-14 in Afghanistan/Iraq.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 1:39:22 PM EDT
HeavyMetal called it. There are so many basic factual errors in that article that can be identified that you have to seriously question anything else the article says. Besides, asking an AP reporter about guns is like asking a virgin about sex.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 2:06:20 PM EDT
Let HK pour resources into the XM8, after it's all said and done I hope our gov't. looks at the cost of replacing the M16 and says, "Screw it, the M16 is a modular weapon, if you can't cut your XM8 POS up and make it into an upper assembly inorder to retrofit our M16s we aren't giving you a contract". THAT is what needs to happen. Jesus, the lower assembly of an AR15/M16 is a workable foundation. We, here atleast, all know that the AR18 and AR15 actions can be married together, Olympic Arm's attempts and ZM Weapons being indications of that. Now if the gov't. would only get behind a similar such development, something could be made out of the M16 if the direct gas impingement is so damned problematic. Christ, it's so rediculous. Who knows, in the end the gov't. might find out something like ZM Weapons and Olympic found out, and that is that the buffer tube can be done away with and a folding stock can be implemented. Only problem I see is the SCAR-L and SCAR-H criteria that seems to be popping up, but that might be a requirement where STANAG type magazines must be maintained at which point the AR15/M16 lower receiver should still be workable. Such as with the 6.8x43mm and the 6.5 Grendel being intermediate rounds above that of 5.56x45mm but just under 7.62Nato.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 2:14:00 PM EDT
Note that the guy who made that coffin quote requested to go unnamed. ROFLAMO[:D]
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 6:25:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By gunnar: This isn't a 'BASH' session on the AR - I own 'em and love 'em. However, I think there's going to be a change. The 5.56 will stick around (logistically it's sound). But, the AR design is old and has reached a pinnacle in design (no one asked, but that's my take on it). I expect changes - changes that will probably cause an uproar. Who's to know, I'm not an expert and don't pretend to be one. But, change is always a constant. Thanks for the replies! Gunnar
View Quote
Then say what the article says. You are a reporter in the making. About being an expert? I stayed at a Holliday Inn Express once.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 6:29:51 PM EDT
Honestly, with the possible exception of a change in caliber, I'd like to see the AR design soldier on until we move away from traditional ammunition. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have some product improvements, but I don't think any of the new designs really hold a candle.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 6:51:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/23/2003 6:52:29 PM EDT by gunnar]
Hey Buey, What are you doing? The link is a public post from Yahoo. This isn't an opinion - it's a post from a reporter and I just happened to share it with the board members. Do you have a problem with people sharing public information? Why are you intentionally trying to stir something up unproductive with your sarcasm? Talk about small minds...get a life.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 7:58:00 PM EDT
The M16/AR15 design is going to be here for a long time, believe you me. Until something radically changes in the military doctrine that we're using these days, I don't know of a simply [i]better[/i] weapons system out there that can out-M16 the M16 (or, perhaps more accurately, the M4).
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 8:00:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By HeavyMetal: There are so many shit errors in that article, I could fertilize the north forty. My cat could have done a more accurate job.
View Quote
Lets see, new things I have learned from that article: The M16A1 was phased in druing the early 1980's The AK-47 has more 'knockdown power' The OICW is going to be adopted My favorite is that the M16 is too long and heavy- I dare someone to tell that to anyone who had to hump an M14 or M1! [:p] As they say in the media biz, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 9:04:36 AM EDT
I agree with Uglygun: let's see more gas-piston uppers and try them out. Any party which wants to throw away 30+ years of field testing and start from scratch, rather than incrementally test and improve a known base, either has no expereince with product engineering, or is money-hungry.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 11:46:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By blikbok: ...or is money-hungry.
View Quote
Yeah, wonder which it is. 750 dollars for a fucking HK USP? My left testicle! Yeah, I know about ecconomics and supply/demand curves. But it's rediculous. Having owned an HK USP, I didn't even think it was worth the 600 I paid for it new in box out the door when I got a smoking deal on one. Sold the damn thing off after not being too terribly impressed with it other than it being a rugged gun, but what exactly should one expect from a boat anchor? I have no love affair with HK itself. Only products of theirs that I truely like are the P7 series and the HK53, the rest of it is "for wookies, by wookies" guns with bad ergonomics.
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 12:44:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/25/2003 12:45:35 AM EDT by Brett_Bass]
You, sir, are hereby awarded the Bass Award for [i]Star Wars[/i] References™ (or BASWR™)! [:D] I'll have to handle more H&K rifles to see if Wookies would indeed be the only people able to use the things. [;)]
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 8:24:14 AM EDT
This is nothing new, SOOCOM has been looking for a replacement for the M-16 for 20 odd years, with no luck. It may happen...and has happenned in the past, they found a better rifle...the Sig 550...Daewoo...FNC...but it was not cost vs. benefit effective. All the 'new" concept weapons such as caseless ammo (HK) and flechettes...have failed, and a GREAT deal of $ has been spent in the last five years upgrading the M-16A2-M-4 platform. What we need is a breakthrough in personal weaponry, something really new...and so far, zip. Believe me, America's Industry is trying...alot is at stake. $$$$$
Top Top