The US Army still plods forward with the M16.

The Army stated it will contract Remington to make it's latest M16 variant. More jamming,still a short barrel and shackled with the unfortunate .223 round

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
The Army stated it will contract Remington to make it's latest M16 variant. More jamming,still a short barrel and shackled with the unfortunate .223 round

The way most military's arm themselves is with the cheapest equipment made by the lowest bidder....quality and care usually doesn't go into profit making BUSINESS ... Reliability isn't usually at the fore front of corporate minds.


Or maybe that's just me being cynical

No Proof but it Makes sense

DUKE

As they say.....happiness is a warm gun. In basic training mine was beside me all times. ALL times.

I guess mine was part of a good batch because I didn't have the jamming issues. Kept her clean and oiled at all times. Learned something very important too. A bullet is a bullet and, when properly placed, will kill regardless of the firearm it comes out of.

I do like the .223 I'll be honest. I made my first deer kill with it, straight through the heart.

I don't know how our soldiers like the M16 family but it is not inherently a bad thing that they are continuing to use the family. The M1911 has been around a century and it is still a really good gun. The M14 and M21 are based on the BAR. The M14 is kind of the exception that proves the rule that the lowest bidder wins though. It is a very accurate and powerful rifle but it is just too expensive to outfit an entire army with.

I personally do not like this decision based on the fact that Remmington Arms is a terrible company. There buisness practices in the past have been more than shady and they don't care about anything but money. I personally will give none of my money or support to the Remmington company. The military could have gone with other more reputable sources for new production. I personally don't like the 5.56/.223 round as is is not that effective against physcos who are drugged up. I have seen men take 4-5 rounds and still keep on coming. If it were my decision I would outfit troops with M-14s or M1A socoms chambered in 7.62x51. Now that's some stopping power right there. But as another poster said, Springfield is not really a lowest bid type contract and their products would be much too expensive to outfit standard troops with.

A piston system in 6-8Grendel would at least be a step forward.We have enough tech to make a better weapon instead of selling our troops short with a carbine with limited accuracy.
All should be trained riflemen,We win wars because of these skills now designated marksman is a special position.Are they deliberately weakening our troops?

reply to post by cavtrooper7


At the very least even a piston system for the M16 would be better than now. Almost every AR maker offers a piston kit now.

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple
I guess mine was part of a good batch because I didn't have the jamming issues.

I had the same experience as you did. I fired boxes and boxes of ammo (thousands of rounds) out of multiple random M-16s and never really had any issue other than the occasional misfire. I had way more drama from the M-60 than I ever did with the M-16.

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple
A bullet is a bullet and, when properly placed, will kill regardless of the firearm it comes out of.

When you look at what the M-16 is, and anti-personnel weapon, then you'll see that it fits perfectly with it's design and intention. It's not made for shooting through armored carriers or walls. I know people gripe about the size of the .223 but it's made for accuracy, velocity, and a light weight means for engaging an enemy human target. Sure it doesn't penetrate as well as an AK 47 but penetration only happens if you actually hit the target. And let's be honest. If an enemy is in a hardened structure for defense someone is going to break out a 50 caliber or M-60 on them and render their shelter useless.

Also people who gripe about the M-16 size haven't had to carry a weapon for days while they're in MOPP 4 gear. Give me the smaller M-16 for that any day.

I am a retired SF officer and have used all the M16's and their variants in the arsenal. I have seen them evolve over the years from 1984 when the ones we had in basic were still serial numbered XM.... They jammed like every other round especially with blanks.

Later I didn't have so many problems especially when the armorers (like in SF units) could keep them running fine. Rarely if ever had misfires or jams - more often than not when I did we discovered the problem to be the cheap magazines rather than the weapon itself.

I also had the discretion to make some choices in what weapons I used on different missions and in different circumstances. A lot of times I carried the M4/203 for the signaling ability of the different 40mm rounds. I also carried the MP5 a lot because as a team leader I usually had a lot of radio equipment and didn't really shoot a lot usually just to protect myself.

In Afghanistan I almost exclusively chose the SOCOM M1 variant. It has long range good power (will penetrate a mud brick wall) and I can put a nice scope on for looking across a valley or to the opposite ridge.

All that said there are a lot of politics in the selection of a contract for anything in the military. Unfortunately we don't always get what's best for us but what's best for the Army's budget. To change from the M16 variants to something wholly different would call for a total rewrite of all training doctrine - from manuals to basic and beyond. Of consideration is the knowledge base of the NCOs who have used this weapon for their whole careers and changing horses mid conflict. That may have been a factor. Far more to it than simply changing the weapon.

Bottom line is there are better weapons out there and there are worse - the round is fine for basic infantry use when augmented with the other weapon systems we have. With all the wiz bang scopes and fire assist devices out there the weapon can (when properly zeroed of course) shoot itself.

We don't really concentrate on raw marksmanship anymore.

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
A piston system in 6-8Grendel would at least be a step forward.We have enough tech to make a better weapon instead of selling our troops short with a carbine with limited accuracy.

The 6.8 Grendel would require more retrofit than the 6.5 MPC with little advantage. The 6.5 MPC is just the 5.56 necked up for a heavier bullet. The only changes necessary to retrofit existing rifles would be a new barrel and a slightly heavier bolt. Everything else would be unchanged.

The purpose of the .223 was not to kill. The purpose was to injure the enemy so other enemies have to care for the wounded. It is also far more accurate the the AK but won't go through trees like the AK will. It will shoot farther with more accuracy than the AK at distance. That's why the Vietnames liked to have close in combat because their AK's weren't as accurate as the M-16 at distance.

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple
As they say.....happiness is a warm gun. In basic training mine was beside me all times. ALL times.

I guess mine was part of a good batch because I didn't have the jamming issues. Kept her clean and oiled at all times. Learned something very important too. A bullet is a bullet and, when properly placed, will kill regardless of the firearm it comes out of.

Amen to that!
I love the M16. I know that I will always be able to pick one up and put a round center mass at 500 yards. I could drill with it...ever try "inspection arms" during drill? You have to master that, and once you do...that weapon will always be an extension of your body. A week of snapping in and the best USMC rifle range instructors in the world and you'll learn to love and trust the M16. Parris Island, baby!

Three round burst is bull#, however.

...anyone who dislikes the M16, hasn't been properly introduced.
Get some.

reply to post by AFewGoodWomen


I used to be one of those instructors, just on Camp Lejeune and not on PI. I love the M-16 for shooting range qualification and competition. However my combat experience has shown me a larger round is always better. I'm all for chambering them in 7.62x51 Nato but I don't see that happening anytime soon. For my SHTF rifle I have an AK. You may not have the pinpoint accuracy of the AR/M4 platform but the durability and simplistic design of the AK will outlast it in the long run. I have mine outfitted where it is deadly accurate up to 300 yards and can still hit much further. I guess I just had too many bad experiences with 5.56 in real world situations.

If I was going to update the current service rifle I'd personally go with a full up bullpup rifle preferably in 6.5 grendel. 6.5 grendel has superior external ballistics at some ranges than even 7.62 x 51 NATO! I'd also have it either forward eject or be selectable ejection like the Longziz rifle concept. I"d also go with a short stroke gas piston retrofit also like the longziz exhibits.

LOngziz #1

As it is though because noone has built my dream bullpup yet and i haven't managed to put one together myself I stick with the AR platform for my tactical shooting needs. It has never seriously disappointed me yet. Because of this I understand why some would stick with it.

Its because the next generation of weaponry is going to be made for exoskeletons.

No point in even moving any further with conventional ballistic weapons for basic infantry. Personal railguns and lasers are only a few years away.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
Its because the next generation of weaponry is going to be made for exoskeletons.

No point in even moving any further with conventional ballistic weapons for basic infantry. Personal railguns and lasers are only a few years away.

You are joking/sarc?

reply to post by kneverr


en.wikipedia.org...

www.youtube.com...

www.csmonitor.com...

science.howstuffworks.com...

dont think hes joking and most likely he is correct. dont think we are at the Mech warrior/avatar mech tech level but in 10-15 years i think we will be at the first level of combat mechs and or powered infantry suits with the possiblity of combat drones (either bipedal or quadraped) that operate with limited input and or possibly be autonomous like terminators but problay not as cool looking

www.wired.com... has cool video

www.businessinsider.com... so from all the links you can pretty much track its progress from 2004-to nowish but the future is powerd combat suits with the holy grail of infantry attacks being sub orbital/orbital drop pods(currently only exists in sci fi like star craft and warhammer 40k)that can hit any where on the globe with in minutes

en.wikipedia.org... real world examples of mechs allready built by the usa and others
news.cnet.com... and darpa planning to build avatar like units for future situations

Yes I carried the M60...in MOPP4, in Desert Storm.Because someone popped off an air fuel weapon and we didn't get the news it was a non nuclear until a few hours later.I understood as long as you keep that piston clear it usually worked.My M203, cleaned,graphite lubed,and in a garbage bag from the night before, jammed when I was taking prisoners. Ain't sand simply marvelous?

reply to post by KilrathiLG


Friend, yes I know about the examples of the exoskeletons that you listed and yes, we may see a limited amounts in 10-15 years but not as Wertdag suggests.

Wertdag stated: "No point in even moving any further with conventional ballistic weapons for basic infantry. Personal railguns and lasers are only a few years away."

To say that the US military has "no point in moving any further with conventional ballistic weapons for basic infantry"; as if we are at the point of replacing "basic infantry" firearms with "personal railgun and laser guns", is ridiculous.

Again, yes the military is experimenting with very large ship mounted electromagnetic railguns which draw massive amounts of power to fire even a single shot and are still years away from full deployment, if at all.

Never mind the fantasy that we are at the point of replacing basic infantry's conventional firearms for Eraser movie type personal railguns.

reply to post by pteridine


I have warmed up more to the 6.5 Grendel, but think that an M-16 replacement should be chambered in 6.8 SPC. We could keep the same platform and just replace barrels. If it hadn't been for the typo with SAAMI specs that led to some performance errors, the military and even more gun enthusiast would have adopted the round. It is still growing in popularity. I don't think that the performance differences between the grendel and the spc are significant in the ranges and engagement zones today and tomorrows soldier will be involved in.

I thought the 6.5 MPC was a nice try, but its specs seemed to make it too big for it's britches. I do think that any modern infantry rifle round should be at least 6.5.