Poll: Replacement for the M16?

Phoenixlight

New member
Aug 24, 2008
1,169
0
0
RAKtheUndead said:
So, you're basing your hypotheses on what makes a good combat weapon on what a game which is clearly not particularly realistic tells you? Hardly any weapon has proper recoil in that game. That doesn't tell you much about the combat efficacy of it in real life.
Well yeah but the developers of the game did some research into what the weapons are actually like so it's not a bad place to compare weapons. Unless you're in the army or something it's very unlikely that you would have fired an assortment of modern assault rifles.

nairb1582 said:
Playing those games does not mean you know guns.
Well it let's you get to know about the guns in the game which are similiar to the real life versions.
 

hamster mk 4

New member
Apr 29, 2008
818
0
0
I think it should be replace with something more idiot proof, rather than something more complex. In a life or death situation "Pull trigger, bullet goes that way" is all I would probably remember from training. Extra bells and whistles will not help me much when the lizard brain takes over.
 

vento 231

New member
Dec 31, 2009
796
0
0
Akai Shizuku said:
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.
Disapproving puppy disapproves of your hatred of my favorite rifle.
 

dogenzakaminion

New member
Jun 15, 2010
669
0
0
I thought that the US military had confirmed that by 2011 all M16's will be replaced by the Scar-L? Either way it's true what most people have said here, that it makes no difference and the best option is keeping the M16. Thats the reason for why we (Norway) still use the G3. Well, that and we really dont need an army to begin with. Not like we'd have a fighting chance anyway:(
 

LewsTherin

New member
Jun 22, 2008
2,443
0
0
Clearly, the next step up from the M16 is:

or

 

johnman

New member
Oct 14, 2008
2,915
0
0
Trivun said:
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.
Cadets ditched those rifles last year. We now have L98 A2's which are semi auto and much more reliable.
As far as I can tell theres nothing really wrong with the M16/M4. Most of the proposed replacments are basically the same gun with a few improvements done by different companies. The best idea I think is to do what the British army is now doing and giving 1 or 2 soliders in every section a 7.62 Lewis Sharpshooter rifle so they have a bit more range and punch than the 5.56 NATO standard.

gh0ti said:
As things stand, anything short of a breakthrough in weapons technology is rather superfluous. That's why there have been so many failed attempts to produce a do-it-all infantry weapon (OICW as an example).
I hate the OICW, never used one, but it looks like arse and very heavy to use.

I mean look at the size of the thing!
 

Toycat

New member
Nov 9, 2009
10
0
0
Luigicheater said:
angry_flashlight said:
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.
really? :eek:

well since i like posting generic things:

i think the M16 should all be replaced with pr0 gunz like the cheytac intervention and people should only be able to look into the scope for a very brief period of time (<0.5 secs) and should be taught to people so when they go to war people die by skill and not rifle n00bz
 

mrdude2010

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,315
0
0
Sacman said:
The AK-47/74 duh...
the ak47 remains one of the most reliable and cheap automatic weapons to date, but the scar h and m16 are better weapons overall.. the ak47 is still a fantastic weapon but its at least 30 years old

everything else i wanted to say has already been posted =/
 

CaptainKoala

New member
May 23, 2010
1,238
0
0
Sacman said:
The AK-47/74 duh...
In reality the AK-47 is crap. The only reason it's so popular is because that it is VERY cheap for an automatic weapon, and because it will fire under most extreme conditions. (i.e. in hot and cold weather, and after being in mud or water.) Those two things alone are not enough to make a good, reliable weapon. Other than that, they have a lot of recoil and they have terrible accuracy. And even though they fire under many extreme conditions they still jam. Alot.
 

Nomanslander

New member
Feb 21, 2009
2,963
0
0
In Nam you would hear about soldiers replacing their M-16s for AKs off of dead Viet Com all the time.
 

CaptainKoala

New member
May 23, 2010
1,238
0
0
Zeeky_Santos said:
gamerguy473 said:
Sacman said:
The AK-47/74 duh...
In reality the AK-47 is crap. The only reason it's so popular is because that it is VERY cheap for an automatic weapon, and because it will fire under most extreme conditions. (i.e. in hot and cold weather, and after being in mud or water.) Those two things alone are not enough to make a good, reliable weapon. Other than that, they have a lot of recoil and they have terrible accuracy. And even though they fire under many extreme conditions they still jam. Alot.
You sir are a fool. Have you been playing too many video games that portray the AK as an inaccurate pile of shit? It is a genuinely good weapon.
Just to be clear I looked this up AFTER you said I was a fool. But it basically says word for word what I said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak-47

"The tapered cartridge case design allow the gun to endure large amounts of foreign matter and fouling without failing to cycle. This reliability comes at the cost of accuracy, as the looser tolerances do not allow for precision and consistency. Reflecting Soviet infantry doctrine of its time, the rifle is meant to be part of massed infantry fire, not long range engagements. The average service life of an AK-47 is 20 to 40 years depending on the conditions to which it has been exposed."
 

Gilhelmi

The One Who Protects
Oct 22, 2009
1,480
0
0
Sacman said:
The AK-47/74 duh...
The AK-47 Sucks, sadly. It is a cheap, easy to use, weapon (this is why they are so popular around the world), that you can drag through the mud and still work, but is nowhere near as accurate as the M-16. As a Sargent on time told me "I can teach you to shoot an AK-47 in five minutes and you are as good with it as you will ever be only hitting the 100 meter . It will take you a month the learn to shoot the M-16 and the novices will get good at hitting the 150 and 200 meter targets while the more skilled among you will be hitting the 250 and 300 meter targets." The M-16 is better then the AK-47.

What we need is multiple rifles, M-16/M-4 for day-to-day patrols where you are not clearing rooms and something that is short for room clearing.

I would like to see the M-16 replaced but we need to focus on better vehicles right now, with more (or better) armor.