Build the M16A5

[CmdrSlander]

AR-15 fans:

If you could design the next evolution of the M16 rifle, what would it be like?

These are the requirements:
-Must be based on an existing M16A4/A3 lower receiver.
-Must have the same ergonomics as the M16A4. (close the the M16A4's OAL, etc)
-Must fire the 5.56x45mm NATO round.
-Must use rifle length gas system.
-Must be able to mount the M203 Grenade launcher on rails or barrel mounted.

My M16A5:



Specs:
Lower: M16A4 lower
Upper: VLTOR VIS 3
Barrel: Modified 18" SPR Heavy Barrel (with the M4 becoming more prevalent, the M16A5 will likely see quite a bit of DMR use). Threaded and equipped as standard with AAC four prong hybrid suppressor ready flash hider.
Stock: VLTOR ARM-1S (same length as A4 stock, but lighter and stronger with storage space)
Iron Sights: KAC Rear flip up, PRI flip up front sight.
Optics: Trijicon Acog TA31 4x32 w/ Docter MSO1 for close work.
Misc: Battery assist device (not shown) if field testing shows it is reliable and provides a significant advantage)

So, what would you like to see in the M16A5? Especially interested in feedback/designs from those who have actually used one in a combat situation.

 

[C-grunt]

I believe there already is a M16A5. Its the A4 with the new Vltor A5 stock system. I believe the USMC was looking at issuing them.

 

[C-grunt]

I like your design minus one feature. I like to have a strong fixed front sight base on my combat rifles. The front of the gun can get banged around a lot during fast house to house fighting and the mounted front sights could be broken or knocked off.

Im also not a fa of the VIS on a combat rifle. If you bend or break the rail you would have to scrap the whole upper reciever instead of just replacing the rails.

 

[CmdrSlander]

@C-grunt

Interesting take on the VIS and the front sight/gas block could be easily changed to suit one's needs (although the sight I spec'd is in use on a current fighting rifle [Mk 12 Mod 0 SPR]) I like the VIS because it retains rigidity all the way down the RIS instead of only on the flat top receiver, with the current M16A4/M4A1 rifles, users of forward mounted optics (NV, etc) and lasers have complained about them losing zero quickly due to vibrations having a greater effect on the less securely mounted non-monolithic RIS.

 

[CmdrSlander]

@C-grunt

I take it that you are/were in the armed forces, do you think a Battery Assist Device (BAD Lever) would be useful? How about the mini-red dot on the Acog? (it will be standard on the M27 IAR when it is rolled out in force).

 

[essayons21]

Change the ability to mount a M203 to a M320, the replacement for the 203.

 

[CmdrSlander]

@above

the M320 requires only rails, while the the M203 barrel mounted requires a special hand guard and barrel profile, is the 320 being deployed en masse yet anyway?

 

[C-grunt]

I take it that you are/were in the armed forces, do you think a Battery Assist Device (BAD Lever) would be useful? How about the mini-red dot on the Acog? (it will be standard on the M27 IAR when it is rolled out in force).

I dont have a lot of experience with the BAD but I dont care much for it. Its a good concept and works well but its not my cup of tea. The mini red dot on the ACOG is a good idea but Im not sure how well they hold up in combat.

 

[CmdrSlander]

@C-grunt

Well the BAD is pretty untested, however the Mini RDS is made by Trijicon and they know their way around making optics for combat rifles, so it will probably hold up well.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

I'd prefer a non-reciprocating charging handle on the left side of the receiver that can be easily operated by the left hand, and that can be simply retracted and pushed up to lock the bolt open.

(On a different wish - I'd like to see a manual safety/selector switch and bolt stop located in the same positions as a handgun so they can be easily manipulated with the firing hand thumb.)

 

[jobu07]

C-Grunt,

I recall you correcting me in a previous thread that there is a M16A5. Google yields results talking about the USMC using the VLTOR stock system, however, a stock system doesn't equate a new nomenclature for the rifle. Google also yielded significant hits on airsoft guns designated the M16A5. I also saw some hits describing a M16A4 that had a KAC rail system, supressor, A2 stock, and ACOG as a M16A5 - this appeared to be a M16A4 with a suppressor.

None of my TM's of FM's have any indication of an A5 nor does perusing of AKO, granted you state it is a USMC adaptation. Is this another XM, or has it been adopted? I haven't heard of anything servicewide, which should be indicative if it is a new alteration of the previous model.

I'm not stating your wrong, quite the contrary, I learned something new just yesterday about Mosin Nagant bolts. I just question a M16A5 when i've heard nothing of one. Is it a commercial adaptation or is it truly under development and distribution with the armed forces and a new generation of M16's just missed me?

Again, i'm not trying to be condescending, just trying to find out where this is in service and how it earned a whole new designation from a stock? We stuck multiple different stocks on M16's and M4's and never officially redesignated them.

 

[Strykervet]

I was infantry, love the AR, no experience with BAD lever, but doesn't look like my cup of tea either. The way I trained to do mag changes just negates the need.

If I made an upgrade I'd put an easy quick change barrel on it, a FF rail similar to the KAC one, and a Geissele auto trigger. My reasoning is simply based on experience --when we needed SDM rifles at the start of Iraq, all we had were M4's with ACOG's. A few of us were lucky enough to get the SOPMOD kit put on because one of the guys knew an SF gunsmith. Fewer yet, me incuded, just got new uppers built using 16" AWB compliant (thanks Clinton, you hamstringed us more than you'll know!) crowned barrels. Although I knew how to change barrels and had done it before, the army doesn't like you doing that, and I didn't like letting the armorers touch my rifle. We'd get 'em back with new barrels sometimes that shot worse than the shot out ones.

Having a quick change barrel would make it much easier to turn one from a compact M4 into a longer rifle. So basically make the M4/M16 into one simple design that is FULLY customizable.

And, uh, chamber it in 6.5G. Just for me if nothing else.

 

[Robert]

I'd lose the 4x and go with a TA-11 in 3.5x. Better eye relief and field of vision and your eye will not notice the difference of .5x. The red dot thingy is not needed for close in targets. The ACGO will still work fine. If you are that close you may not even have time to shoulder the weapon. Extra weight is extra weight and something else to break. But that is just me. Also if the back up irons will not function with the ACOG in place I am ditching the BUIS. I'd rather have the ACOG anyway.

If this is a DMR rifle why do I need a grenade launcher? Ditch that and the ammo to go with it, or better yet give it back to the Grenadier. Too heavy and not needed in a DMR role. Allows me to carry more 5.56.

Is the barrel free floated? If not I want a good float tube that is going to free up pressure on the barrel. And by ditching the bloob tube I can mount a bi pod to allow for more accurate shots.

Now this all comes from a competition shooter's point of view. As the only enemy I have seen are evil steel plates.

 

[CmdrSlander]

@Gus

My M16A5 can serve as a DMR but is also a mainline combat rifle, so the "Bloop Tube" is an element of it. The VIS 3 system allows a lower rail for a bipod, foregrip etc, the barrel is not free float with the M203 but it is without it.

 

[Robert]

Ok I see what you are getting at. It would be a plat for adaptable across many different roles.

 

[CmdrSlander]

@Gus

It would be a plat for adaptable across many different roles.

As any good combat rifle should be.

 

[Robert]

Yeah I was looking at it from just the DMR aspect. So, I'd say you havea pretty decent rifle setup there. I'd still go with the TA11 instead.

 

[CmdrSlander]

@Gus

Yah, the ACOG could be any number of optics, the Marine Corps require BUIS and the RDS is an idea lifted right from the new M27 IAR they are rolling out to replace/supplement the M249.

Here is the Mini RDS acog setup in real life on the M27:

 

[kfgk14]

Vltor A5 stock tube with a Magpul CTR stock. Hammer forged, chrome-lined, 11595E steel, 18", rifle-length gas system barrel, government profile with deep fluting the whole length. Troy 15" Alpha Rail (make it happen, Troy Industries). Grenade launchers ought to be independent, not attached to the rifle (they make thigh holsters for the M320, man. THIGH HOLSTERS!) IMO, so I don't know what to tell you with that. Aimpoint Micro T-1 with a flip-to-side 4x magnifier and a 1MOA dot (make it happen, Aimpoint, and keep it lighter than an ACOG). KAC 600 meter rear BUIS. Fully ambidextrous lower receiver (figure it out, maybe we have to phase out our old receivers...re-open civilian MG sales please!? Then sell through the CMP ). Ambidextrous version of the BCM gunfighter charging handle. AAC Blackout 51T and an AAC M4-2000 as standard-issue kit. Blue Force Gear VCAS sling with the 2-1 QD tri-glide.

Now you said it had to be rifle-length and all, but...

Make, through NSN, an exact copy with a 16" mid-length gas system barrel of same specs and a 3" Troy Alpha rail available for troops who need it, as well as a 10.5", carbine-gas-system version with a 9" Troy Alpha rail. Same optic for each setup, all optics/accessories mounted via LaRue mounts. standard issue flashlight is the Surefire X300 (make the Elzetta ZFL-M60 available as well? favorite light, personally, YMMV).

Anyway, that's all I've got. Make it happen, US Military!

 

[henschman]

I would say something pretty similar to the actual A5 that is going into service with the Marines (flat top, 20" gov't profile chrome lined barrel, and collapsible stock), though I would add a few more features. I agree on keeping the fixed front sight... if it ain't broke don't fix it. I'd say issue it with a KAC 2-600m flip up rear sight. It does everything the carry handle does while being compatible with mounted optics. I would want some sort of modular lightweight free float handguard, rather than railed ones, so that rails can be added only when and where they are needed to reduce weight (something along the lines of the MI-SS or Troy TRX Extreme). I would say issue it with a suppressor... maybe copy the M-110 type setup and have qd threads on the gas block, and use a suppressor that the barrel protrudes into to reduce the overall length when suppressed.

And wouldn't you know, I am basically building this rifle right now!

 

[madcratebuilder]

The BAD Lever is the last thing I would install on a true combat rifle. Fine for run and gun games, but not for serious work.

If you want the most effective way to do clearing drills, use the AXTS A-DAC-F lower.

 

[JustinJ]

Why not use a telescoping stock? An adjustable gas block with a suppressed setting would be nice too. I also say stick with the 20" barrel ecspecially for DMR purposes.

 

[C-grunt]

C-Grunt,

I recall you correcting me in a previous thread that there is a M16A5. Google yields results talking about the USMC using the VLTOR stock system, however, a stock system doesn't equate a new nomenclature for the rifle. Google also yielded significant hits on airsoft guns designated the M16A5. I also saw some hits describing a M16A4 that had a KAC rail system, supressor, A2 stock, and ACOG as a M16A5 - this appeared to be a M16A4 with a suppressor.

None of my TM's of FM's have any indication of an A5 nor does perusing of AKO, granted you state it is a USMC adaptation. Is this another XM, or has it been adopted? I haven't heard of anything servicewide, which should be indicative if it is a new alteration of the previous model.

I'm not stating your wrong, quite the contrary, I learned something new just yesterday about Mosin Nagant bolts. I just question a M16A5 when i've heard nothing of one. Is it a commercial adaptation or is it truly under development and distribution with the armed forces and a new generation of M16's just missed me?

Again, i'm not trying to be condescending, just trying to find out where this is in service and how it earned a whole new designation from a stock? We stuck multiple different stocks on M16's and M4's and never officially redesignated them.

I did some more research on the A5. It was made at request by the USMC for an A4 with a collapseable stock. Vltor makes the stock system. The USMC is or has been testing it but its not been adopted. Since it hasnt been adopted it really isnt the A5 but thats most likely what it will be called if they do adopt it.

Having used the A4 or the DMR version of it throughout my time in the Army and in Iraq, I think the USMC A5 concept is really good. I never had trouble clearing buildings with a full rifle and I like the range and smooth operation that the rifle brings.

 

[Cecil Sharps]

no offense

I hope you see the humor in this,

but that is way to much mall-ninja crap for a service rifle. I've seen the stupid stuff privates do and i've seen privates break the unbreakable.

 

[jobu07]

Having used the A4 or the DMR version of it throughout my time in the Army and in Iraq, I think the USMC A5 concept is really good. I never had trouble clearing buildings with a full rifle and I like the range and smooth operation that the rifle brings.

Agreed, I never had issues using an A2 style stock for entering rooms either. If I had my druthers i'd stick with my M4 though. Thanks for digging deeper on the A5 info.