Poll: Replacement for the M16?

[jackknife402]

The AK-47/74 duh...

NO YOU HAVE TO BE RANK 70!



In all seriousness, keep the M16, it took the Viet Cong out, and it's probably took more people out than I can be bothered listing.

wait the M16 caused the most deaths to Americans in that war because it kept on jamming... something that doesn't happen to the AK...

that was just the first year of use, after they fixed it. It wasn't jamming because it was floppy, it was jamming because the pentagon got cheap and switched powder types, and didn't issue cleaning kits to troops. the powder got gunked up because it didn't burn as clean, and in jungle enviroments that's like pouring tar down the barrel.

The AK47 jams, it's just it's breach is large enough to easily extract, but has the reliability of a monkey plane parts inspector.

 

[Akalistos]

Well ive been looking at the m16s history and i find it had to believe that it has been in service for almost 60 years with no replacement in sight i know its a good rifle but i think its about time we equip our soldiers with better tech cuz like a computer u can keep upgrading it but eventually you'll have to replace it.

Wat are your suggestions please have the name, manufacturer, country of origin, and why it should be the next primary infantry rifle and if you think the rifle shouldn't be replaced please elaborate.

Please also take into account that if your rifle were to become the next standard our soldiers will have to use it so please dont choose a rifle just cuz u think its cool but think of does who will have to use it in combat.

Funny thing, they still base all Assault riffle design on the Kalashnikov. So, as long as we don't invent the G.I.Joe's Fully automatic, unlimited ammunitions, Laser Assault riffle, i don't see the point.

 

[maturin]

It's currently in the process of being replaced by the Scar-H I believe.

I doubt they are going to replace a 5.56mm rifle with a 7.62mm rifle. If I'm not mistaken, the Scar-L was a candidate, but the program was canceled.

The military isn't going to switch to 7.62mm just because the Taliban are very far away. Most soldiers can't hit anything at 600m anyways.

 

[Nickolai77]

Here in the UK we use the L-98 series. Single-shot, have to cock it after each shot, but a very good range and easy to use and maintain. Easy to strip down, too. I trained with a cadet version when I was in the CCF (Combined Cadet Force) in school, RAF section, and it was so easy to handle. It's a modified version for cadet use of what the British troops use in the field out in Iraq and Afghanistan and wherever, though I'm not sure how long it's been in service. But surely, for all countries, weapons should be recycled and a new version or a more advanced weapon be made available when new technology is developed? Upgrades can only get you so far, eventually as the technology changes military forces need to change with it, right?

Ive had basic training with this modified version but never got the chance to fire it with live ammunition. It im a pretty good shot with the old bolt actions though, reminds me of the SA80 which i thought was our current gun no?

You'd have used the L98 A1, it differs from the L85 A2 (standard army rifle) in that the L98 is single shot, iron sights, and designed to prevent negligent discharge of rounds. Baisically, the L98 is a safer, simpler version of the L85.

 

[Koeryn]

the m16 was MEANT to be replaced by the ACR, but i dont have a clue what happened there. The whole premice was that the AK47s worked so much better, so the Americans needed a more effective weapon, which is why they created the ACR, a weapon that can be pulled apart and constructed with ease on the battlefield, and altered to fit the AK47 ammo.

It was cancelled for several reasons. After actually handling the ACRs that are available now, I REALLY don't blame them. It's not at all a good weapon.

Can't remember why the XM8 project was scrapped, but that gun looks like a fish. Seriously. The SCARs are solid guns though, very impressed with the civilian one I got to handle.

for the record, the SCAR has been accepted by USSOCOM, and is already in the process of being fielded.

I love the Tar21, but the SCAR has something that M4/16 family users have come to really, really like: Rails. The Tavor has one rail for optics, the SCARs have 4, which allow the use of everything from optics, lasers, grenade launchers, shotguns, cup holders, literally anything you could possibly need your weapon to be able to do on a mission.

Crap, anyone wanna give me... $6,000? I wanna by a SCAR and a TAR21!

 

[Daverson]

It's currently in the process of being replaced by the Scar-H I believe.

The US Army currently uses the M4, the M4A1, the M16A2 and the M16A3, all these rifles to be replaced the SCAR-L, while the SCAR-H was to complement it, and possibly replace the 7,62 NATO SR-25 variants and 7,62 M43 SR-47 rifles used in some capacities. However, recent budget cuts have led to this program being cancelled. (Unlike the XM8, which was cancelled because it failed to meet the requirements of modern infantry. Just a G36 in a fancy box... which is, in turn, just an AR-18 in a fancy box. So it's just an AR18. Which already failed army trials!)

The USMC still uses the M16A4 (essentially the same thing as the M16A2, though retrofitted with an RIS top rail and handguard), they've replaced some M249s with HK416s, so it's possible they may be doing this as a method of getting their "foot in the door" to replace their A4's with 416s.

No idea on what the Navy or Airforce use. I know the Navy used to have a lot of M16A3s, though I don't know if these have since been converted into M4s.

AR-15 should never have been put into service with the Army or Marines IMO. Another great example of the Air Force ruining everything for everyone... (yes, everyone, even us Brits and the Germans... Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn yooooooooooooooooou USAF!)

 

[sh0tgunenclave]

currently is being replaced by the m4a2 rifle.
the xm8 is in weapons testing as a possible replacment.

 

[Daverson]

currently is being replaced by the m4a2 rifle.
the xm8 is in weapons testing as a possible replacment.

Not true.

M4A2? Doesn't exist. I think the Czech use this notation for the current version of the M4 (the M4A3 being the manufacture version of the M4A1, the early run M4s had A2 uppers, the new ones are flat-top) Just checked that, the "M4A2" and "M4A3" are bushmaster rifles, never been put in US military service so don't deserve an M-designation!

XM8 project was cancelled because it failed to meet the requirements of USSOCOM. (No rails, sub-par performance in the dust test, integrated optics needed a special toolkit to be zero-ed, not STANAG compatible, the list goes on...)

 

[Neuromaster]

Although, if they had laser rifles, enrolment in the armed forces would probably double overnight...

Haha, wow, I didn't think my first post would be about this, but...

Use of lasers in warfare is against the Geneva conventions. The technology for laser rifles actually exists, but nobody is going to use it any time soon because they would have the entire world at their throats in an instant.

I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. A quick search shows language [http://www.un.org/millennium/law/xxvi-18-19.htm] that specifically prohibits laser weapons for the purpose of blinding (like this one [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personnel_Halting_and_Stimulation_Response_rifle]). Lasers designed for the purpose of burning a hole through your torso would seem to be fair game.

That being said, I really don't think the technology exists. A complete man-portable laser system in the ~7-8lb range that can burn through body armor in well under a second? That will fire more than a few times before running out of juice? That won't attenuate to the point of uselessness through atmospheric conditions? If it does exist, I'd love to see it.

 

[II2]

So... correct me if I'm wrong, but after the failed OICW project (XM8 being tangentially related)...

The US forces have purchased about 120,000 units of FN SCAR varients for their special ops...

FN SCAR L (5.56mm NATO) w/ 40mm Grenade Launcher

As for the rest of their forces, they're gradually phasing out the the popular M4 carbine and remaining M16a2's and M16a4's in favor of the HK416?

A lot of the emphasis on weapons preference is given to the above models for being rugged and easy to maintain, as well as modular and capable of being quickly refitted with different barrels, optics, and tactical attachments to meet specific scenarios.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

You mean for the AmeriKKKan soldiers, the tools of imperialism and unjustifiable bloodshed, all in the name of profit motive? Nope, I think the M16 is just fine.


Or, perhaps this.

http://www.bennylingbling.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/maverick.jpg

Maybe then it would be just a little bit quicker and easier (not much, since the M16 is shit, but whatever) for those fighting for their freedom, self-determination, and their fucking survival in Afghanistan, Iraq, and probably soon Korea, to kick those imperialist swine off their land.

 

[JRShield]

I think the G36 is the king of the AR's right now:

Spoiler: G36

 

[Thedayrecker]

We should replace it with:

Spoiler: The Roman Gladius

Time to get back to hand-to-hand combat, if you ask me...

 

[Ralen-Sharr]

The biggest problem that the military keeps running into is that they CAN make stuff superior to the M-16 but everything they try to make costs a LOT more and when you are looking at replacing so many rifles, the costs get pretty insane.

It does the job, and does it without breaking the budget. The special forces guys (much smaller numbers) will end up with fancy new rifles while the everyday soldiers will continue to carry the M-16 until a cost-effective replacement can be found.

 

[Divine Miss Bee]

if it ain't broke, don't fix it! i don't feel like having my taxpayer dollars go towards buying all-new guns for everyone just because "it'd be cool to try something else." the m-16 is a good gun, and it's been around for 60 years because it works well.

 

[Benny Blanco]

Firstly, the military in my country use the SA80A2, which has compatible magazines to the M16 but less jamming problems. If the US stop using M16s and compatible variants, the MOD in Britain might consider changing to a compatible system as well.

Would be good to see a bigger round than the 5.56mm NATO become standard, but it will create big costs for every military with a compatible rifle to patch over.

 

[Knight of Cydonia]

ummmmmm.....The SA80?

Spoiler: SA80

Sorry. This is the only assault rifle I know how to clean, shoot, and take apart.

I haven't handled any other assault rifles so I don't know how good they are.

 

[Silent Eagle]

Sure it's got stopping power but what are you going to do when you got full-auto accurate suppression fire from an M-16 on your ass? Die that's what! Even with Kevlar!

Someone doesn't understand the concept of suppression fire.... Suppression fire is not designed to kill people, it's designed to make them keep their heads down and not shoot back so that you can get closer to them to kill them by shooting properly. It is by definition not accurate beyond "somewhere in the general direction of dudes".

Also, you know how long an M-16 will fire on full auto? (even the ones that will, the A2 and A4 variants don't even have full auto on the selector) Four seconds. That's how long you get. That's why you get box fed SAWs like the M249 specifically for the purpose of delivering suppression fire. (and why the new "machine gun" the US Marines have ordered is nothing of the sort, a machine gun with a 30 round magazine... No, you've just ordered a rifle without going through the political circus that is rifle procurement in the US Military)

The AK-47 is an outdated weapon,it's really just for sport now.

You'd think the "47" would give it away. The gun is from 1947, anyone using an AK-47 is using it because they come from a third world shithole and can't afford a real rifle.

I'm just saying why the M-16 is good,why dont you just agree with me?