Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/27/2006 3:48:51 PM EDT
I don't know if this is true or not but I hear the XM8 is dead, do you think they will keep the M-16 for another 10-20 years or is it inevitable they will retire it?
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 4:30:00 PM EDT
There is talk of replacing it with the new scar rifle. (If it performs well) I think once we leave Iraq there will be a lot of progress into a new rifle. (I believe that the funding for the Iraq war was what doomed the OICW project.)
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 4:46:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 4:57:14 PM EDT
Well, there's another can of worms. Do you think it will be the 6.8, 6.5 or something else?
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 5:00:50 PM EDT
I hope there will be something more forward-looking. By that I mean, not just another warmed-over AR-15 or AR-18 style rifle. I'm picturing something like a H&K G11, possibly upgraded with an electronic trigger and electronically ignited ammo (like the Voere USEL cartridges). The technology exists, there just needs to be some gumption (and funding) to bring it to fruition.
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 5:06:17 PM EDT
I think that it is going to be around for a long time. The one thing I think is a given is the next platform will not be availible to civilans
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 5:28:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ballisticbill:
Well, there's another can of worms. Do you think it will be the 6.8, 6.5 or something else?



5.56 NATO is a flawed and outdated cartridge. 6.8mm SPC and 6.5 Grendel are probably better on the whole (although some might say they represent a throwback to the era of long-range aimed fire). The new Chinese 5.8x42mm is probably a better cartridge. My favorite is still the Soviet 5.45x39mm round, which does about the same thing as 5.56 NATO while avoiding its mistakes.

The problem is, none of these offer enough advantage to justify the huge costs of a full-scale switch over. Despite its shortcomings, 5.56 NATO is still serviceable, and it can stand a bit more tinkering (which is being done) to stave off the need for a massive switch.

If we switch, it should be a switch to something radically improved. Caseless ammo, electronically ignited ammo, discarding sabot flechettes. . . I dunno what it'll be.

Here's what I would do. . . Get DARPA to announce a prize competition, sort of like they did with the self-driving vehicles. They could let anybody design their own future assault rifle and associated ammo and enter it in the competition. Then set no specifications for what kind of weapon they want -- let the inventors have a free hand to try any concept they like and then try to demonstrate why it's good for our soldiers.

Simple fact is, most innovations have come from gun designers who had their own vision that nobody else had thought of or asked for. That's where the AR-10 and AR-15 came from, that's where the MAC-10 came from, and that's where the Ultimax-100 came from. When the US Army lays down specifications, then we end up with disasters like the SPIW program or the OICW, where engineers struggle to meet impossible demands. Or else, we get lackluster minor improvements over existing weapons (XM8, SCAR, HK 416, etc.).
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 5:32:02 PM EDT
Hey, maybe when they do phase it out... it will mean cheaper M-16's for The rest of us...
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 5:41:54 PM EDT
The replacement for the M16 is most likely going to be the new phase plasma rifles, somewhere in the 40 watt range...
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 5:48:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
The replacement for the M16 is most likely going to be the new phase plasma rifles, somewhere in the 40 watt range...

Link Posted: 2/27/2006 6:20:06 PM EDT
I'm kinda partial to...the Illudium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator and
the ACME Disintegration Pistol
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 6:50:54 PM EDT


5.56 NATO is a flawed and outdated cartridge. 6.8mm SPC and 6.5 Grendel are probably better on the whole (although some might say they represent a throwback to the era of long-range aimed fire). The new Chinese 5.8x42mm is probably a better cartridge. My favorite is still the Soviet 5.45x39mm round, which does about the same thing as 5.56 NATO while avoiding its mistakes.


Please explain what is flawed about it, and what Mistakes the 556 has? From what I understand the commie 5.4 round is even weaker and has less down range energy then the 556? Is this true or false? 762
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 6:54:59 PM EDT


Lock and Load Baby!!!!!!
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 6:57:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Gatman762:

5.56 NATO is a flawed and outdated cartridge. 6.8mm SPC and 6.5 Grendel are probably better on the whole (although some might say they represent a throwback to the era of long-range aimed fire). The new Chinese 5.8x42mm is probably a better cartridge. My favorite is still the Soviet 5.45x39mm round, which does about the same thing as 5.56 NATO while avoiding its mistakes.


Please explain what is flawed about it, and what Mistakes the 556 has? From what I understand the commie 5.4 round is even weaker and has less down range energy then the 556? Is this true or false? 762



+1
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 6:59:15 PM EDT
I hope they keep the M16 in service for a while. I would like to get to use it when I enter the Marine Corps. However, whatever rifle replaces it needs to be an American made weapon. It just doesn't look right to have American troops with European weapons in their hands.
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 7:00:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TylerM_8:
I hope they keep the M16 in service for a while. I would like to get to use it when I enter the Marine Corps. However, whatever rifle replaces it needs to be an American made weapon. It just doesn't look right to have American troops with European weapons in their hands.





Damn Right!!!
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 7:36:58 PM EDT

However, whatever rifle replaces it needs to be an American made weapon. It just doesn't look right to have American troops with European weapons in their hands.


Speaking as one who carried a Belgian FN-made rifle (M16A2), manned a Belgian-designed MAG-58 beltfed (M240), and rode around the combat zone in a Canadian vehicle (Marine LAV):

I don't care if the weapon was invented, designed, built, and blessed by religious authorities in bloody Fiji or Timbuktu, provided it works right.

-MV
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 7:39:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/27/2006 7:44:09 PM EDT by Horik]

Originally Posted By tonybelding:
5.56 NATO is a flawed and outdated cartridge. 6.8mm SPC and 6.5 Grendel are probably better on the whole (although some might say they represent a throwback to the era of long-range aimed fire). The new Chinese 5.8x42mm is probably a better cartridge. My favorite is still the Soviet 5.45x39mm round, which does about the same thing as 5.56 NATO while avoiding its mistakes.



5.45 is not better than 5.56 is far as any testing I have seen and read.


The problem is, none of these offer enough advantage to justify the huge costs of a full-scale switch over. Despite its shortcomings, 5.56 NATO is still serviceable, and it can stand a bit more tinkering (which is being done) to stave off the need for a massive switch.


I agree


If we switch, it should be a switch to something radically improved. Caseless ammo, electronically ignited ammo, discarding sabot flechettes. . . I dunno what it'll be.


I thought flachettes had been tried?


Simple fact is, most innovations have come from gun designers who had their own vision that nobody else had thought of or asked for. That's where the AR-10 and AR-15 came from, that's where the MAC-10 came from, and that's where the Ultimax-100 came from.


Ahh, the vaunted Mac10


When the US Army lays down specifications, then we end up with disasters like the SPIW program or the OICW, where engineers struggle to meet impossible demands.


Ya' the military has no idea what they would want in a weapon platform, why ask them? They just make it too hard.


Or else, we get lackluster minor improvements over existing weapons (XM8, SCAR, HK 416, etc.).



Lackluster.........?
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 7:46:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/27/2006 7:47:43 PM EDT by DOA]

Originally Posted By tonybelding:

Originally Posted By ballisticbill:
Well, there's another can of worms. Do you think it will be the 6.8, 6.5 or something else?



5.56 NATO is a flawed and outdated cartridge. 6.8mm SPC and 6.5 Grendel are probably better on the whole (although some might say they represent a throwback to the era of long-range aimed fire). The new Chinese 5.8x42mm is probably a better cartridge. My favorite is still the Soviet 5.45x39mm round, which does about the same thing as 5.56 NATO while avoiding its mistakes.





OK Ill bite. Please explain to us why the 5.45 is better than the 5.56. Please explain your ACTUAL usage of the M16 as well as any combat experience. I have my popcorn waiting...
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 7:54:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MatthewVanitas:

Speaking as one who carried a Belgian FN-made rifle (M16A2)



FN has a plant in the US (North Carolina, IIRC) that they make their M16's at.

WIZZO
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 8:58:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/27/2006 9:01:54 PM EDT by wise_jake]

Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
The replacement for the M16 is most likely going to be the new phase plasma rifles, somewhere in the 40 watt range...


You mean like this one?

Atomic-hyrdogen gun

(note the date on that publication -- 1956!)


ETA: I don't know whether that publication refers to a large gun (i.e. naval-type weapon) or a small arm. I've been meaning to go looking for that Memoranda, but haven't gotten around to it yet.
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 9:07:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 9:11:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/27/2006 9:13:26 PM EDT by TylerM_8]

Originally Posted By WIZZO_ARAKM14:

Originally Posted By MatthewVanitas:

Speaking as one who carried a Belgian FN-made rifle (M16A2)



FN has a plant in the US (North Carolina, IIRC) that they make their M16's at.

WIZZO



Yep. Columbia, South Carolina to be correct.
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 9:29:26 PM EDT
I thought it was one of the Carolinas

WIZZO
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:17:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MatthewVanitas:

However, whatever rifle replaces it needs to be an American made weapon. It just doesn't look right to have American troops with European weapons in their hands.


Speaking as one who carried a Belgian FN-made rifle (M16A2), manned a Belgian-designed MAG-58 beltfed (M240), and rode around the combat zone in a Canadian vehicle (Marine LAV):

I don't care if the weapon was invented, designed, built, and blessed by religious authorities in bloody Fiji or Timbuktu, provided it works right.

-MV



Good Point!!
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:21:25 PM EDT
Hopefully it will be a heavier bullet. Id like to see a .243 or at least 5.56 with 77smk's.

I <3 77g SMK.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 3:09:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Stickman:

Originally Posted By ballisticbill:
Well, there's another can of worms. Do you think it will be the 6.8, 6.5 or something else?




I mean the next generation of 5.56 ammunition. The current heavy bullets are just the start.



+1

There is a significant effort ramping up in the Army in this direction. Given that the Army Marksmanship Unit, the Program Manager Small Caliber Ammunition, and the Program Manager Soldier Systems are all involved, I predict that the 5.56 replacement for the M855 is going to lay down to rest a lot of the BS of today.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 3:28:23 PM EDT
I think the M16/M4/AR variants will be around for a long time, just look at all the M14s still in service. It wil lalso take them some time to phase them out, but even then they will still be around.

Nathan
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:00:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:
Hopefully it will be a heavier bullet. Id like to see a .243 or at least 5.56 with 77smk's.

I <3 77g SMK.



+1
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:23:02 PM EDT

I know people like to give a bad wrap on them, but I think the Shrike, if not that particular company, but that idea, has some promise.

A belt fed M4, light, you can mount a 203 or whatever you want on one, and the profile thing is no longer an issue. As long as they are reliable with quick changing barrels, they might have something.

If you asked me anything about an XM8, id tell you I don't know squat about it, why?, cuz when I saw it, I chose to not waste my time.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:26:09 PM EDT
Improvements to the 5.56.

I don't care where the tools come from, as long as they work.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:56:23 PM EDT
To get the thread back where it started...... I know somebody involved in the testing of the xm-8. He said that the weapon would not hold zero when hot. Groups opened up to an unacceptable level after heating up. Also said it was a design flaw that HK could not tweak out, it needs a major redesign. HK also shitcanned the guy who designed it.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:57:56 PM EDT
i think the m16 platform is here to stay because of its versatility. as far as the current 5.56 round, im thinkin definitely less than 5 years.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 5:21:42 PM EDT

To get the thread back where it started......


what? I think it's stayed pretty on topic so far.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 7:11:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MatthewVanitas:

However, whatever rifle replaces it needs to be an American made weapon. It just doesn't look right to have American troops with European weapons in their hands.


Speaking as one who carried a Belgian FN-made rifle (M16A2), manned a Belgian-designed MAG-58 beltfed (M240), and rode around the combat zone in a Canadian vehicle (Marine LAV):

I don't care if the weapon was invented, designed, built, and blessed by religious authorities in bloody Fiji or Timbuktu, provided it works right.

-MV



That LAV was made by an American company (Textron Land & Marine Systems) that happened to build it in a division in Canada. Does that make it a foreign company?
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 7:24:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Stickman:

Originally Posted By ballisticbill:
Well, there's another can of worms. Do you think it will be the 6.8, 6.5 or something else?




I mean the next generation of 5.56 ammunition. The current heavy bullets are just the start.



Will civilians see these improvements? I mean be able to get their hands on them. It's hard enough to get 55 grain 5.56 pressure ammo, and next to impossible to get 75 or 77 grain 5.56 pressure ammo.


TS
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 8:05:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BushmasterGuy77:

just look at all the M14s still in service.

Nathan



When the marines get their first space suits,
there will still be a Marine with M14 patrolling somewhere
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 5:33:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/1/2006 9:28:53 AM EDT by mach6]

Originally Posted By kels:

Originally Posted By BushmasterGuy77:

just look at all the M14s still in service.

Nathan



When the marines get their first space suits,
there will still be a Marine with M14 patrolling somewhere


----

Excuse the arguable hijack -- but the above posts actually are quite relevant to the thread. Indeed, the M14 is not going away -- despite certain people at DCD Benning and ARDEC. Just look at the USAF MK14 Mod X and USN MK14 Mod 3, together with the new latitude Army commanders in the field are only now getting with regards to Force Modernization. What are they asking for? Upgraded M14s -- pure and simple. The 101st is the prime example of that phenomenon, of late, along with the 172d SBCT and the 10th ID. This all follows the much-heralded 2ID initiative that really started this trend. More to the point, evolving fiscal priorities are inescapable and defense dollars are being reprogrammed in the small arms arena as we speak.

The same applies to the M16 family. With the myriad product improvements both in the weapon platform iteself and (hopefully) soon in the above-cited ammunition arena, you may see this weapon soldier on for quite some time to come, albeit in other guises.

In other words, there comes a time in every war that we as a Nation must heal our Armed Forces while balancing the requirements to fix our bridges and schools. In the end, it has always been and will always be that way. So.....is the XM-8 dead? You bet. SCAR, however is open to a very spitited debate. See paragraph above.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 7:57:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tonybelding:
I hope there will be something more forward-looking. By that I mean, not just another warmed-over AR-15 or AR-18 style rifle. I'm picturing something like a H&K G11, possibly upgraded with an electronic trigger and electronically ignited ammo (like the Voere USEL cartridges). The technology exists, there just needs to be some gumption (and funding) to bring it to fruition.



Where's the fun in that?
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 8:16:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tonybelding:
I hope there will be something more forward-looking. By that I mean, not just another warmed-over AR-15 or AR-18 style rifle. I'm picturing something like a H&K G11, possibly upgraded with an electronic trigger and electronically ignited ammo (like the Voere USEL cartridges). The technology exists, there just needs to be some gumption (and funding) to bring it to fruition.


No offense, but that's about the worst thing we could do. The caseless ammunition theory has been given up on by everyone who has tried it. Why exactly should we have an electric trigger? What benefits would that have if any at all? Electronics don't have any benefits over mechanical firearms under these conditions. An electronically controlled rifle is not something I would want to rely on. JMO.

I think we should carry light sabers.

Link Posted: 3/1/2006 8:18:17 AM EDT
The M16's in inventory will be around for a decade or more. I like my ACOG-topped M4/203 for most things, and meanwhile. I have my '61 Winchester M14 for the long work.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 8:19:37 AM EDT
I'm sure some ammo innovations could extend 5.56X45mm well into the future.

Maybe brass-based, mostly plastic cases with tungsten-carbide flechettes in a plastic sabot or something. Something with high penetration but a tendency to fishhook or deform otherwise in liquid (tissue) mediums so it delivers all its energy and does a lot of damage.

I think the ACR program already saw something like this introduced.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 9:32:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/1/2006 9:43:25 AM EDT by fogofwar]
Stickman got it right. Ammo improvement will dictate any future rifle (individual weapon) developments.

We are pretty much at a technical plateau with conventional rifle and ammo technology. Any future developments will be variations on a theme rather than significant innovation or improvments until new ammunition is developed. Watch out then, that will be fun! And probably off-limits to civilians due to the increased lethality.

The M-16 will be around for years and years to come. It is a reliable and well-tested platform. It will be as effective a killer 100 years from now as it is today. Unless body armour technogy outstrips bullet technology, which is quite possible.

I predict that the SCAR or a variation thereof will ultimately replace the M-16, but it will be years, if not a couple of decades, before the switch is fully complete. By that time smart ammo will be pretty well developed and start to take over from rifles.

Those are my predictions--and worth every penny you paid for them
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 1:15:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/1/2006 1:22:53 PM EDT by ballisticbill]

Originally Posted By clutchsmoke:
To get the thread back where it started...... I know somebody involved in the testing of the xm-8. He said that the weapon would not hold zero when hot. Groups opened up to an unacceptable level after heating up. Also said it was a design flaw that HK could not tweak out, it needs a major redesign. HK also shitcanned the guy who designed it.



The best reply yet!!! However all of them are good
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 2:01:52 PM EDT
I agree with you all; with advancements in ballistics, even the old M16/AR15 will be kicking for a few more decades.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:32:03 AM EDT
The XM8 isn't as dead as all might think...its laying low and waiting to strike again!

I do have to say though that the M16 will be around for a long time still...the platform anyway. I think before the government shells out the bucks for a new weapons system, they'll make an improvement on the current M16's. Enter the HK416.

When that happens...a final showdown between the 5.56 and the 6.8 will take place.

But mark my words, the XM8 will be back in one form or another.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 3:43:05 PM EDT


5.56 NATO is a flawed and outdated cartridge. 6.8mm SPC and 6.5 Grendel are probably better on the whole (although some might say they represent a throwback to the era of long-range aimed fire). The new Chinese 5.8x42mm is probably a better cartridge. My favorite is still the Soviet 5.45x39mm round, which does about the same thing as 5.56 NATO while avoiding its mistakes.





OK Ill bite. Please explain to us why the 5.45 is better than the 5.56. Please explain your ACTUAL usage of the M16 as well as any combat experience. I have my popcorn waiting...

I'm waiting too. If you are correct than "The NATO Handbook of Emergency War Surgery" editions II-IV are all incorrect. The US military uses this as a standard book for war surgery so if it is wrong let me know and supply your source (I'm not intrested in your actual usage unless you have autopsy results since most war stories are useless in evaluating ballistics)and I'll send it up the chain.....
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:22:46 PM EDT
Top Top