How long will the m16/m4 last?

[Bartkowski]

I was just wondering how long the m16 and m4 style rifles will be our military's main battle rifle. Is the rifle only in use today because it would be hard to retrain soldiers to use a different weapon, or is it really that good? Also, do you think that rifles like the HK416 with new gas piston will overcome rifles with the standard gas system soon?

 

[HorseSoldier]

The current military preference (at least as far as Big Army is concerned) is to hold off on spending a bunch of money on only a modest improvement in performance, such as the HK 416 represents, in favor of waiting until technological advancement offers really dramatic improvement.

Barring changes in this basic situation (from, say, overwrought Congressmen . . .), the M4/M16 looks destined to remain in service for at least another decade, I'd guess.

 

[rugerfreak]

They won't change anything till this war ends---too much of a logistics nightmare to be changing things mid-stream.

 

[wcwhitey]

The thing that most people do not understand is that he Military is akin to Civil Service. You have to establish a standard based on the lowest common denominator. Special Forces will always be able to pick and choose weapons for their mission and have the funds to do it. The rest of the forces will be subject to monetary considerations. Whatever the issue may be, training, retooling, etc., the dollar will come before the individual. The M16/M4 is a good system, good enough that a over whelming argument cannot be made currently for a change. Add that plus the cost of the change and I can hardly see it happening any time soon.

 

[R.W.Dale]

Whatever replaces the m-16/m4 will NOT use ammunition in the traditional sense, if it uses ammunition at all. Rifles are a perfected technology with no more room for improvement. Much like the steam engine, prop driven aircraft and the toaster oven.

Why replace the current rifle. I'm pretty sure that 99.97496% of the time bullets come out the end of it's barrel so how exactly is anything similar an improvement.

 

[cracked butt]

It would probably take another quantum leap in tactics or rifle technology for a change to occur.

If you look at the overview of US military small arms, almost every change has been brought about by new technology.

-Muzzleloader to single shot breach loader (Trapdoor Springfield)- cartridge technology
-Single shot breechloader to repeater (Krag, Lee Navy)- Magazine/bolt action development (with the development of lever actions in between as well)
-Repeater to clip fed repeater (1903 Springfield)- Mauser charging clips
-Bolt action to semiauto (M1, Johnson)- Fire and movement tactics (the M14 was nothing more than an improvement on the M1, and wasn't really much of a change in technology and also wasn't the standard issue rifle for very long.
-Semiauto battle rifle to select fire intermediate cartridge 'assault rifle'- German and Soviet developments in rifle technology along with changing tactics.

Really there isn't anything out there right now including anything made by HK that could be considered a significant improvement on the M-16/M4. It would probably require a significant change in technology such as caseless ammunition or some technology that does not exist yet before its considered obsolete.

 

[The Deer Hunter]

Why replace the current rifle. I'm pretty sure that 99.97496% of the time bullets come out the end of it's barrel so how exactly is anything similar an improvement.

Cause they need to spend money

 

[R.W.Dale]

Cause they need to spend money

In which case lets replace those F-15's that are breaking in two and falling from the sky before we replace a rifle that still shoots holes in bad guys just fine.

 

[Andrewsky]

I don't care what we replace it with, I just want to make sure that we thoroughly crush at least 750,000 rifles so that civilians can't have them.

Not that anyone would actually do that.

Hey, the Army's missing a few M14s. Anyone see them around?

 

[RP88]

^^^yep

rifles are a perfected technology because the next step up are lasers and railguns. Even if they were made small enough for a serviceman, the cost of them would bankrupt us.

The only improvement left is ammunition, and aside from the fight over better caliber and dynamics, that is pretty much a mature technology as well.

The only expected things to see are things like better ammunition (possibly even caseless, but I doubt it), possibly a better bolt/piston system after manufacturing kinks are smoothed out enough to make them inexpensive, and minor cosmetics or material to make them lighter. In all honesty, the M16/M4 design and concept could be around for another 50 years, maybe even another whole century. Even if it were to be replaced, whatever gun that replaces it will offer nothing that we havent seen in the past 30 years. I bet the AK design will still be around as well, and still be powerful enough to penetrate whatever armor we come up with to stop it.

 

[walking arsenal]

And powered armor, don't forget the powered armor

 

[R.W.Dale]

Even if they were made small enough for a serviceman, the cost of them would bankrupt us.

People have said the same things about radios and body armor.

 

[taliv]

i don't think rifles are anywhere near perfected. it seems obvious to me that despite being 50 years old, the M16-family has seen DRAMATIC improvements in the past 7 years. further, it seems that the rate of improvements is increasing.

 

[kgpcr]

Its still the same of .223 in a new package. We need to get a round with a little better performance at long range!

 

[Javelin]

The Army is still trying to field the M4 to all of its Infantry units (no lie the 3rd and 4th Infantry Division still has M16A3s). I know the M4 will be around for at least 10 years.. and really I would be surprised if we change the M4 platform before 2030.

 

[RP88]

"People have said the same things about radios and body armor."

we'd still be quite a way before making them small enough and cheap enough to be favorable. The maintanence would also be a real b**ch for a soldier, since the gun would replace simple mechanics with complex computerized, magnetic, and electrical pieces. I could see railguns maybe becoming small enough for tank use in my lifetime, but the sheer size of a prototype railie that shoots conventional-sized bullets weighs as much as 500 pounds, needs to charge up to shoot one shot, and doesnt outperform an M16 bullet by much. Thats alot of work to be done...

even the ship-mount railguns pretty much need to be partially replaced after a single test shot.

But who knows...we were also supposed to have floating smart cars in ten years. Time will only tell lol

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Whatever replaces the m-16/m4 will NOT use ammunition in the traditional sense, if it uses ammunition at all. Rifles are a perfected technology with no more room for improvement.

I seem to recall reading that some gunmakers in the early 1800s felt the same way, then things like smokeless powder, rifling, and the metalic cartridge was introduced and really revolutionized things.

I don't know that rifles have reached their developmental climax. No doubt there will be better ways for soldiers to fire more powerful ammo with better control such as was done for shotguns with the AA-12 shotgun.

Even if rifles have ostensibly reached their developmental climax, the M4 isn't exactly the best possible combat rifle according to many "experts."

 

[R.W.Dale]

I seem to recall reading that some gunmakers in the early 1800s felt the same way, then things like smokeless powder, rifling, and the metalic cartridge was introduced and really revolutionized things.

OK! name one revolutionary improvement in rifle ammunition since the invention of the spitzer bullet in the late 19th century.

 

[Caimlas]

IMO, buying new (ie different) firearms for infantry would be nothing short of a waste of money at this, or any immediate, point in time. There are so many better places to put funds than in rifle/carbine development and/or purchase.

Catching up with the Russian and Chinese anti-ship missiles would be a good start, off the top of my head. But also the troops' body armor, the Humvee (and various other vehicles), etc. could all see a degree of engineering improvement, particularly in light of what kind of battle we're fighting.

P Now would be a good time to unveil those gravity-defying alien tech "black blimps" our government supposedly has!)

No, the "rifle" concept, as manifested by the current AR platform, is probably as mature as it needs to be. It's a very, very small component of a soldier's tool belt, especially compared to conflicts like World War I and II. It's still important, yes, but having mobile soldiers (ie lightweight ammo) who don't run out of ammo readily, and an established logistics chain, seem like drastically more important factors to me.

 

[taliv]

electronic primers
caseless ammo

 

[Owen]

DARPA Leads the Way!

Seriously, the robots they are working on (eg, robotic trucking) isare where the money will be going for the forseeable future.

 

[George Hill]

Look at the current crop of electronic paintball markers.
It's not going to be long before someone fits an E-Trigger frame to an FAL rifle... something along those lines. Digital trigger control instead of mechanical. Combine that with electrical primers and you have some seriously interesting possibilities.
Remington had their electric primer rifles in 2000 and they pimped the speed in locktime as being the greatest thing in the world. And it is an improvement. Unfortunately the whole thing was a flash in the pan commercially... but that doesn't mean it was a bad idea. It just wasn't ready to roll in a bolt action hunting rifle.
Now put that system together in an automatic and give it to some door kicking grunts and let them play with it... make it something more potent than the .223....
Say a .260 Remington...

I would take two please.

 

[Outlaws]

Whatever replaces the m-16/m4 will NOT use ammunition in the traditional sense, if it uses ammunition at all. Rifles are a perfected technology with no more room for improvement.
I seem to recall reading that some gunmakers in the early 1800s felt the same way, then things like smokeless powder, rifling, and the metalic cartridge was introduced and really revolutionized things.

I don't know that rifles have reached their developmental climax. No doubt there will be better ways for soldiers to fire more powerful ammo with better control such as was done for shotguns with the AA-12 shotgun.

Even if rifles have ostensibly reached their developmental climax, the M4 isn't exactly the best possible combat rifle according to many "experts."

For all intended purposes, they have reached a climax. Why? All these regulations have more or less made development of weaponry feasible only to those already in the business.

Improvements and new designs were made left and right, and slow down right as more and more laws came to be. Coincidence?

 

[rangerruck]

I think it will be around for the foreseeable future... especially if they adopt the
6.5 grendel round. Then, very few changes would have to be made to the weapon, really just the bbl, and maybe the bolt.

 

[C-grunt]

The only thing I see changing in the near future is a heavier round...ie M262...and maybe a gas/piston system.