New standard issue assault rifle?

Now I love the M16/M4 as much as anyone, but the rifles are thirty some odd years old. Of all the equipment the US military has upgraded, Its beyond me as to why they have yet to adopt a new rifle.

Most of the major militarizes have moved to a bullpup style rifle. The British Enfield and French Famas are two examples. The major advantage of bullpup rifles is that they can be substantially shorter than normal rifles while still retaining equal if not better accuracy.

I can see why the US military is not in a hurry to purchase a new rifle, there is nothing wrong with the m16, and after thirty years of development it has very few flaws.

But there are several new rifles on the market that could be possible replacements for the m16/m4.

My personal favorite is the HK 416, this is one sweet rifle.
A few others include the Hk XM8 which im sure special forces use, another is the FN SCAR which can chamber the 5.56x45 7.62x51 or 7.62x39.

Here is a good link for more info on these rifles world.guns.ru...

mod edit: corrected title spelling

[edit on 15-11-2007 by UK Wizard]

Here is a video of the Hk 416

www.youtube.com...

Here is the Hk XM8

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 14-11-2007 by Blitz]

I know that they were serisouly contemplating replacing the M16 with the OICW, but I think they realized that this was to f***in big. As far as I know there hasnt been an serious compitition for the M16 or later models, they have been using the M serious rifles since the M-1 Garand in WW2, and they have been going through them ever since, I think it could be just as likly that an M-18 or M-20 or whatever designation they give will be the replacment, why switch to HK or something when this has worked so well for so long for them?

the m-16/m-4 is only about 5 or 6 years old. the m-16/a1 is about thirty+ then there was the a2,a3,a4,a5. the weapon has been baised on the original model and has fired the same nato 5.56 through out its many stages but if one did the research they would see that all the models are diffrent. from rate of fire, to heat shields, wieght, length, diffrent secondary weapon attachments and so on. the 5.56 is not that large of a round but its accurate and it gets the job done. the weapon is some what relyable, i can only think of a few times mine jamed when i was in the service. but when you fire a weapon of any kind enough its bound to jam from time to time. i see no need to replace it. well not yet anyways.

the xm-8 has a plastic magizine. ask the russians why they dont use plastic mags any more. not a bad looking weapon though. i dont see either replacing the colt not for some time anyways. but who knows ive been wrong before. and colt has a big name to beat with years of tried and tested dependability. although h&k has a reputation of its own.

A new AR model rifle would be just as good, although the new Hk 416 has already been proven and is ready for production.

And its also time for an upgrade from the old Nato 5.56x45 to the new 6.5x39mm.

Originally posted by Blitz
A new AR model rifle would be just as good, although the new Hk 416 has already been proven and is ready for production.

And its also time for an upgrade from the old Nato 5.56x45 to the new 6.5x39mm.

the ar model has been around as long as the first m-16 all it is, is a m-16 with a longer barrel for more range. dont get me wrong i believe we should be using a bigger round as well. the 7.62 is nice but you do lose a bit of accuracy with larger rounds the .22cal faimly(to many to name) are about the most accurate round on the planet. i can sacrifice some knock down power for accuracy, but thats just me..

Originally posted by Blitz
Here is a video of the Hk 416 - - Too Expensive for what it gives

www.youtube.com...

Here is the Hk XM8 - Doesnt even exist anymore

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 14-11-2007 by Blitz]

Theres nothing majorly wrong with what is already in service so why fix what isnt broken?

Errr why fix what ain't broken? And the rest of the last few comments....

Words cannot describe the inaccuracies that need to be clarified in this thread.

1. The HK-416 is NOT just a longer barreled M-16!! The 416 uses a gas piston operating system rather than gas impingement. If anything the 416 is a hybrid of the ak-47 and the M-16

2. The M series of rifles are not made by the same manufacturer or based off of a single design. M is an internally military designation.

3. The m-4 is a horrible weapon! If one looks up commonly available ballistics information one will find that the NATO 5.56 round by design needs to hit 2500 feet per second plus in order to retain it's full effectiveness (aka fragmentation and tumbling of the round) As most of the common m-4 variants have under a 14.5 inch barrel this is not happening even at point blank range!!

4. The m-16/m-4 is not terribly reliable and due to it's operating method never will be!! This is what the Hk 416 modification or replacement is designed to fix. Instead of direct gas impingement which allows carbon buildup and fouling to collect inside the chamber, the 416 uses a gas piston system. the gas piston system "siphons" off some of the propellant gasses from a gas block assembly towards the muzzle of the rifle which provides the motive force by pushing a piston. As long as the M-4 uses it's current operating system it will always have reliabillity issues!

So that is all I will even bother with for now as far as corrections.

Now onto the topic... What we need more than a new rifle (Even with the issues inherent in the m-4's operating system) is a new rifle round. Many ideas have been trotted out in this field like 6.5 spc 6.8 and others so I will not go into that. However I will say it is utterly feasible to convert to a new round and only need to replace the barrel, bolt, and a select few other pieces. Thereby creating a much more effective weapon for minimal cash layout.

Originally posted by roguetechie

1. The HK-416 is NOT just a longer barreled M-16!! The 416 uses a gas piston operating system rather than gas impingement. If anything the 416 is a hybrid of the ak-47 and the M-16

if you read the thread you would see that no one said the above comment. i was talking about the ar series weapons. the m-4 was designed for closer combat and issued origanly to soldiers that spent most of there time in vehicals. i dont know were you get you numbers frankly i dont think they matter i promise you if the 5.56 hit you from 800 meters out of an m-4 it would put you out of commision..

The M16 series of weapons is a great platform, but the direct gas inejection operation is flawed as the other author states.

I would like to see a G36 derived weapon much like the M8 with a round of 6.8SPC or 6.5Grendal, both offer better terminal ballistics and stronger hydrodynamic shock from the bigger round, I would also like to see a 5.45mm style round with a soft tip and steel penetrator like the one in Russian service and this would also help the 5.56mm round's performance as the soft tip expands while the penetrator pierces armor or obstruction.

Also a P90 PDW should be issued instead of a M4 Carbine, while less capable in terms of stopping power, it does offer more ammunition and a very compact package and would be alot more suited for room-clearing.

reply to post by GrOuNd_ZeRo


Hey GZ long time no see.

I agree with you aswell. Except im for ultra short carbines instead. Smaller than the M4 and not used except for when the fighting will be really indoor.

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo


Also a P90 PDW should be issued instead of a M4 Carbine, while less capable in terms of stopping power, it does offer more ammunition and a very compact package and would be alot more suited for room-clearing.

I agree with most of your post except for the p90. If the M4 were to be replaced by a sub machine gun, I dont think the p90 would be the best choice.

while its fifty round clip, of armor penetrating madness is nice to have at close quarters. The 5.7mm round has no stopping power at range unlike the M4. The MagPul PDR 5.56 has the compact design of the p90, while still retaining the long range stopping power of the M4. The MagPul is still being developed, but I think it would be the optimum choice.

Or my personal favorite the Kriss super V. Its not the most accurate sub machine gun, but its capable of putting out 45cal at around 800rpm. Thats the same as an MP5 firing 9mm.

[edit on 18-11-2007 by Blitz]

A .45 in a SMG would be dandy (long as they used 200grains or better), just ask some of the WWII vets who carried the Tommy Gun

I am a soldier in Iraq, and while I'd like to see the m-16/m-4 replaced, I dont see it happening any time soon. I have heard reports of the old M-16 getting the chamber and firing pin replaced with that of the AK-47. It still looks like a M-16, but it shoots the 7.62 round. I also heard reports of SF using them, but I cant say exactly any specs on it. It is being tested.

OP-
The XM8 was cancelled because it "didn't exceed the M-16" ect. JFGI.
The OICW was cancelled because of cost and above. JFGI.
The SCAR is VERY nice and was designed with inputs from the SOF community- hopefully it will get picked up for mass production.

Worldguns is a nice site for pictures, but it's not terribly up to date or all that accurate.

I doubt we'll ever see a bullpup rifle in use with the US Military- too many old warhawks doubt reliability and cite that changing magazines takes too long/takes eye off target whereas with the M4 a competent shooter can keep his target sighted while slamming a new mag home.

If we do end up getting a new standard assault rifle, my money is on the SCAR- albeit in 5.56, of course. No need for USAF Johnny Cop to be on patrol on base with a 7.62.


But that's just my $.02

Australia gets AICW.
Automatic 3 shot 40mm grenade launcher.
16 inch 5.56 barrel
bullpup
based on steyr aug
You do not need to change sights to fire the GL.

What is not to like.
(apart from weight)

Our Military needs a rifle like the AK47 .you can use it abuse it and it will still fire. The M16 is way down on my list for useful weapons.

5.56mm is a good round when it is matched with the right barrel. The round can do massive damage if it is used with the proper rate of twist and barrel length. Also, there are reports coming out of Iraq/Afghanistan that the heavier weight bullets (70+ grains) are doing a good job of putting the enemy down for good. Using heavier rounds in conjunction with the right length barrel (with a twist of 1:9, as favored by heavier rounds, and a length of 20" ) makes the round adequate. Small rounds do not always mean less damage; the Afghans didn't call the Russian AK-74's 5.45mm round the "poison bullet" for nothing. The shock of a round entering the body at such high speeds is ugly.

M-16s are dirty weapons and time intensive to clean. It would seem that the gas piston conversion kits out there can help to solve this problem.

Going back to the ammo issue, has anyone researched blended metal technology? If you haven't heard of it, it's awesome stuff. I'm sure Google or YouTube has some videos on it. A blended metal round in 5.56mm might offer up some additional lethality.

Actually there are two new weapons in service that at this point look to become main stream...
the first is the XM307 ACSW Advanced Crew-Served Weapon / automatic grenade launcher (USA)see here
This 25mm Airbursting Weapon System is meant to be the replacement for the old .50 caliber MaDuce and the Mk.19 Mod.3 40mm grenade launchers...
Anyway while that is a crew-served weapon using a new cartridge it was only natural to develop the Alliant Techsystems / Heckler-Koch XM-29 SABR / OICW assault rifle (USA) See here

Well parts of HK ended up being sold off and as of 2005 the two top contenders to replace the M4/M16
are the XM8 Lightweight Assault Rifle (USA)
and the XM25 grenade launcher / air bursting assault weapon (USA)
IS this set in stone??? Not...but this is a best guess...until another general changes his mind...