Poll: Replacement for the M16?
- Thread starter sansamour14
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ummmmmm.....The 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.
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.
FYI: Modern Warfare is a GAME! Just because it has little recoil in that game doesn't make it that good in real life.Phoenixlight said:
O.T. It has already been replaced, my the m16a1 and 2. Oh, right, but you want a properly new gun right? Well then the M4 would be a good replacement, but upgrading to that really wouldn't be worth it for the US army. The g36 could also be a suitable replacement, but honestly, they don't need to have a replacement. The M16 works perfectly fine has the US's main assault rifle, it's cheap, easily cleanable (The newest models anyway, the m16 was notorious in the Vietnam war for not being issued with a cleaning kit, and being prone to jamming and rusting due to what the barrel was made out of.) and fixable. It's the ideal weapon for the US army. Upgrading would be pointless and expensive.
The m-16's bolt goes all the way back into the stock when a cartridge is fired to reduce recoil,does the ak-47 do that to?
Can the 47's stock be removed?
Can the 47's stock be removed?
Actually, like I said in a previous post, it was quite unreliable in the jungles of Vietnam and was prone to jamming. Especially seeing has they didn't think to issue the M16 with a cleaning kit, which they eventually fixed with the M16a1 &2. Besides, America lost the war.TerribleAssassin said:
The US M4 Infantry weapon will be replaced by whoever bids the lowest to outfit most soldiers with one and create a major surplus during times of long term hostile deployment.
Australia said it would start shifting it's primary firearm to the AICW by 2012 but nothing has really come of it so far ...
Australia said it would start shifting it's primary firearm to the AICW by 2012 but nothing has really come of it so far ...
H&K G11 (Caseless ammo) I recon this weapon had a decent prospective future with a little more work it could well have been the standard issue weapon of the future.
But cost constraints and the obvious problem to work its unique ammunition logistically into the modern army makes me think its concept was well before its time.
Obvious bonus of having 45 round magazine, and no shell to discard or worry about jamming the weapon as well as a phenomenal rate of automatic fire.
Not too sure on how much it weighed thou and what its actual performance was like in trials. But the concept pushed some boundaries. And I could well see a different weapon but using the ground breaking concepts integrated into the G11 been made available in the armed forces of the future.
Perhaps with an even larger magazine capacity and some kind of good guy recognition lock on it to prevent enemy combatants from been able to use it against your own. (If I do recall correctly it did use a cpu to manage its rate of fire so this doesn't seem like that much of a stretch of the imagination)
I do think the basic M16 will be around for a long time to come though. And most of the other rifles that people put forward just cant be justified because if they are using the same ammunition as the M16 there really isn't going to be that much of a difference in performance to justify scraping the already capable and issued incumbent.
But cost constraints and the obvious problem to work its unique ammunition logistically into the modern army makes me think its concept was well before its time.
Obvious bonus of having 45 round magazine, and no shell to discard or worry about jamming the weapon as well as a phenomenal rate of automatic fire.
Not too sure on how much it weighed thou and what its actual performance was like in trials. But the concept pushed some boundaries. And I could well see a different weapon but using the ground breaking concepts integrated into the G11 been made available in the armed forces of the future.
Perhaps with an even larger magazine capacity and some kind of good guy recognition lock on it to prevent enemy combatants from been able to use it against your own. (If I do recall correctly it did use a cpu to manage its rate of fire so this doesn't seem like that much of a stretch of the imagination)
I do think the basic M16 will be around for a long time to come though. And most of the other rifles that people put forward just cant be justified because if they are using the same ammunition as the M16 there really isn't going to be that much of a difference in performance to justify scraping the already capable and issued incumbent.
m16 technically sucks you can't drop it in water or sand if you do then it will be beyond repair you will need a new one after that by the way it isn't already replaced by the m4 m4 is almost the same as m16 infact it looks as it would the same model only with sprinkles added . my sugestion is xm8 rifle because it's one of the more new weapons that i could find on google it started beeing produced 2004 and was cancelled 2005 why? i don't get it instead of the old crap that brakes so easily you can get a new high tech weapon but cancel it?! seriously?!also m16 gets stuck almost every second magazine
You are pretty much saying we need small arm rail guns. Producing a gun thats smaller without reducing accuracy but with the same explosive force as a larger gun would be very difficult to create.gh0ti said:
In all seriousness the M16 cannot and will not be replaced for awhile because of the massive debt US is in and actually M16's are being brought back into service because they are inexpensive.
I still say leave it to the AK-47 based on the fact that most countries the U.S is at war with has the 7.62x39mm cartidge. Free ammo+cheap weapon=profit. But the Remington ACR is able to used the 7.62 as well. My bid is on the still heavy wallet.
They commonly use the M4, which is derived from the M16, so they are using the M16 still, in a round about way.
I think they should have went with the XM8, as it seemed like the perfect weapon system, seeing as it can be refitted with different componants to fit the needs of the soldiers.
Barring that, the Bushmaster ACR
http://www.bushmaster.com/acr/
I think they should have went with the XM8, as it seemed like the perfect weapon system, seeing as it can be refitted with different componants to fit the needs of the soldiers.
Barring that, the Bushmaster ACR
http://www.bushmaster.com/acr/
Sorry, but that's a ridiculous over-simplification.Silent Eagle said:
That's not combat, that's the end result you're describing. The actual "combat" part is made up of different weapons systems, tactical doctrine and training, which have changed enormously over the last four or five centuries.
17th century Musketeers bear little resemblance to the highly mobile, armour wearing soldiers that wield weapons that are capable of much further range, greater damage, and an incredibly higher rate of fire than their historical predecessor.
The 18th century muskets were highly inaccurate and had a severe limitation on range- but highly effective if used en masse.
Rifles becoming more prevalent saw a huge shift in tactical doctrines, so you see a move away from large formations in marching order to men spread out behind cover taking careful aim at their targets.