Nolo
Member
GunTech, what do you think about the Direct-Impringement gas system of the M16? It appears to increase accuracy significantly, but I'm wondering if there's any way to counter the (even minute) unreliability.
What would you Change the US Assault rifle to
- Thread starter 68'chevelle
- Start date
- Status
When a true milestone is developed we will have one. But not a minute before. It makes no sense to spend the billions of dollars to change anything when the replacement would give almost no greater capability then we already have.
I think you'd have big problems getting them to function if they were much lighter. Any weight you lost in the bolt carrier would probably have to make up in the buffer. Anytime you start cutting the weight on an automatic weapon, you're opening yourself up to function problems. The place to cut the weight is on the accessories. There are lasers out now that are smaller and lighter then the PAQ-4C and PEQ-2. We need those accessories to fight, but we can make them lighter and smaller.
Jeff
Nolo
Member
Jeff, I think if you integrate all the small improvements in infantry weapons that have been seen since the M16, then you will have a truly milestone weapon. Maybe not revolutionary, but milestone certainly. Then there's the issue of age. But I think the plan is to just replace them all with M4s.
Danus ex
Member
Thank you Vern for saying what needed to be said. That's simply the reality of product development. Continual refinement is the designer's equivalent to the soldier's vigilance.
Also, we shouldn't forget that other nations have flashier, newer guns because they designed their rifles after we did ours. We were one of the first in the 30-round, .2x caliber game, so our stuff is old by default. And I know, nobody likes to have the ubiquitous car, phone, or assault rifle, but ubiquity usually has no impact on function. Our rifle has put a lot of enemies in the dirt and continues to do so. It's no surprise that American effort and ingenuity led to a rifle that, like the B-52 or Iowa-class battleship (mothballed I know), serves effectively well past its expected service life.
Shadow Shock
Member
The infantry rifle is often considered irrelevent in modern conflicts. What with modern tanks and aircraft, missles launched from hundreds of miles away, super accurate artillery, sattelite intelegence, etc.
The fact remains however, that infantry are perhaps the most vital part of any combat force. You can have jets flying overhead all day, but without boots on the ground, you can't controll it. And missles and artilery arent going to get every hajji hiding out there. It is possible to win a war with just infantry, but impossible without them.
However, we have reached the limit for our rifles, any impovements will have negligible impact in the outcome of a war. I wouldn't be suprised if soldiers went straight from M16's and M4's to lasers.
EDITED TO ADD: If you're arm ain't broken it's hard to really fix it.
The fact remains however, that infantry are perhaps the most vital part of any combat force. You can have jets flying overhead all day, but without boots on the ground, you can't controll it. And missles and artilery arent going to get every hajji hiding out there. It is possible to win a war with just infantry, but impossible without them.
However, we have reached the limit for our rifles, any impovements will have negligible impact in the outcome of a war. I wouldn't be suprised if soldiers went straight from M16's and M4's to lasers.
EDITED TO ADD: If you're arm ain't broken it's hard to really fix it.
anymanusa
Member
I've only gotten to page 3 so far, but this has really turned out to be a great thread. I'll read the rest later.
6.8 SPC is a dead issue in the Army. Big Army wasn't interested and SOCOM isn't prepared to go it alone. Whatever is done, it will be 5.56x45.
Jeff
sig226
Member
Piston operated bullpup design in .308. The bullpup will allow a longer barrel on an otherwise compact rifle for street/urban combat. The 5.56mm works great in uniformed conflict, but the principle behind it does not work against irregular fighters. Wounding some headcase in Vietnam or Iraq is not good enough. They keep fighting.
Modern recoil pads and recoil absorbing systems can make the caliber easy for anyone to shoot. Ammunition weight is a problem, but then I get into the ultimate sacrilege: make it a semi auto only. Three round burst combines the worst features of automatic and semi automatic operation and is an improvement over neither.
Modern recoil pads and recoil absorbing systems can make the caliber easy for anyone to shoot. Ammunition weight is a problem, but then I get into the ultimate sacrilege: make it a semi auto only. Three round burst combines the worst features of automatic and semi automatic operation and is an improvement over neither.
And what principle is that?
How many head cases in Vietnam and Iraq did you fail to stop with 5.56x45? Just curious......
Jeff
sigfanatic
Member
HK 416 all the way
They should just go with what the D' boys, SEAL Team Six(whatever they're calling them these days) and the Assymetric Warfare Group and more recently the Norwegian Army already uses which is the HK 416. Has practically the same manual at arms and with the exception of the gas piston parts has enough commonality with the older M-16 that spare parts are already in the pipeline. All anecdotal evidence I've ever read about when it's used in the Sandbox is rave reviews from the Operators. It takes the M-16 weapon system to a whole other level in terms of reliability and service life. Too bad small arms procurement by the big Army is perpetually run by closed minded, myopic ignorant morons with the same "not invented here attitude" we've seen for so many years.
They should just go with what the D' boys, SEAL Team Six(whatever they're calling them these days) and the Assymetric Warfare Group and more recently the Norwegian Army already uses which is the HK 416. Has practically the same manual at arms and with the exception of the gas piston parts has enough commonality with the older M-16 that spare parts are already in the pipeline. All anecdotal evidence I've ever read about when it's used in the Sandbox is rave reviews from the Operators. It takes the M-16 weapon system to a whole other level in terms of reliability and service life. Too bad small arms procurement by the big Army is perpetually run by closed minded, myopic ignorant morons with the same "not invented here attitude" we've seen for so many years.
HorseSoldier
Member
I don't disagree, if (as Jeff White said) the new milestone offers some real breakthrough in performance. Swapping out the M16/M4 for another rifle/carbine firing 5.56x45 seems like kind of a waste. Now, if the LSAT program bears fruit and they can get a 33%-50% reduction in the weight of ammunition using cased-telescoping or caseless designs, that might be the sort of technological innovation around which a new rifle/carbine could be built and give us something worth replacing the AR with.
If you want a good insight into the procurement of rifles, you should read "The Great Rifle Controversy" By Ezell. It's a real eye opener, particularly as regards the M16. To say the Army is conversative is putting it mildly.
I've often wondered why they don't use the war in Iraq as a testing lab for rifles - equip experimental units. Not with developments stuff, but with weapons that are bsically ready for adoption. That would give you a real data set collected from combat operations, and not the test range.
I'll bet there are volunteers that would be willing to try the HK416, 6.8 SPC and other systems. Too often, decisions are made by bean counters who have no idea what the infantryman actually needs.
I'll bet there are volunteers that would be willing to try the HK416, 6.8 SPC and other systems. Too often, decisions are made by bean counters who have no idea what the infantryman actually needs.
doc2rn
Member
I would like to see an effective design like the Thompson and Colt 45 ACP make a comeback, maybe we shouldn't be a one rifle for all platform.
IndianaBoy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,551
Sig 550
Honestly, I don't see the .45acp making a comeback as general issue. No doubt it is more effective in than the 9mm in FMJ, but weight and logistics are what rules military spending for the most part. Every new piece of equipment demands that it be lighter than previous generation equipment. Whether it be rifles, ammunition, body armor,.....etc the upper brass always demands that it be lighter. In fact, the lastest demands from the DOD is that they want a new infantry rifle round that does more damage than the 5.56 at all ranges, but is even lighter than the 5.56 NATO. So, most likely we are looking at caseless ammo, or polymer cased ammo.
The problem is that we start running into the law of diminishing returns which can go several ways. You can lighten equipment to the point of greatly reducing its durability, service life, and overall effectiveness. On the other hand, you can increase the durability, service life, and overall effectiveness of equipment to the point where it becomes too expensive, too heavy, and too logistically problematic.
A balance must be achieved in order to blend weapon effectiveness, weapon lightness, and weapon handling. Using a long ranged cartridge such as the Grendel compromises weight and terminal effects. Using the 7.62 NATO compromises weapon handling and weight. Using the 5.56 NATO compromises long range, and barrier effectiveness. Using the 6.8 SPC compromises long range effectiveness and weight. In an assault rifle configuration which is designed to engage at ranges of 0-400m, the 6.8 SPC is the superior cartridge for this purpose at the price of extra weight compared to the 5.56 NATO.
As I stated earlier, I think that if we were fighting this war in a colder climate, a heavier caliber would of seriously been considered for replacing the 5.56 NATO.
I will say that the 6.8 SPC problem is NOT dead in the water. It was not adopted in the initial field trials by the DOD not because of its performance but because of production problems and a lack of agreement on the cartridge specifications. So, the field trials were extended through the end of the 3rd quarter of 2007 with the newer specifications of the 6.8 SPC. The new specs include the use of a small rifle primer, and a velocity of 2500-2550fps out of a 16" barrel for a 115gr Hague complicant bullet. There is supposed to be a summary of this report available within a month or two which will be the finalized results of the 6.8 SPC project. So no, the 6.8 SPC has not been rejected yet.
Maybe instead of scrapping the whole rifle + caliber we should consider replacing the ammunition to something other than FMJ.
I mean, why bother with convention limitations on ammo types which are for enemy nations when we are stuck with insurgency type events....
Not like the other side gives a dang about the rules
I mean, why bother with convention limitations on ammo types which are for enemy nations when we are stuck with insurgency type events....
Not like the other side gives a dang about the rules
No. But if there are mature systems, and troops are given proper training, there's no reason they can't be field tested prior to procuments. We are tesing other systems like LandWarrior in the field.
At some point, you have to send a new system into the field. I don't think we should buy it first, and then work out all the bugs.
Ozwyn,
Do you have any ebvidence to support the fact that the Insurgents are using things like expanding bullets? It's all very well to toss out the Hauge conventions, but I'd expect some real screaming if the other side started doing the same. The rules of war work both ways.
Further, there a military requirement that bullets pierce barriers and possibly armor. It's not liike hunting where you pick the bullet for the spcific game. You need a round that does everything - it's a compromise. FMJ does everything equally poorly. It's also cheap to make. That's important when you are talking about billions of rounds.
Do you have any ebvidence to support the fact that the Insurgents are using things like expanding bullets? It's all very well to toss out the Hauge conventions, but I'd expect some real screaming if the other side started doing the same. The rules of war work both ways.
Further, there a military requirement that bullets pierce barriers and possibly armor. It's not liike hunting where you pick the bullet for the spcific game. You need a round that does everything - it's a compromise. FMJ does everything equally poorly. It's also cheap to make. That's important when you are talking about billions of rounds.
KINGMAX
Member
try this
Take the round from the M14, then build a modern rifle for the Warrior of today.
jmo
Take the round from the M14, then build a modern rifle for the Warrior of today.
jmo
- Status