Poll: Replacement for the M16?

[Cabisco]

Have some of our upgradede Sa80s, no really they are quite kickass now. As far as I can make out the m16 is a decent weapon, so i'd say just take the time to find a really good replacement instead of making a rash decision to regretting it, like we did with the original sa80

 

[Not-here-anymore]

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?

Ah, the RAF section... Happy days, even if I couldn't shoot for shit. (Well, comparatively. Anyone can use a rifle; it's not particularly difficult)
The flying was fun though!
I'm fairly sure that it's just the cadet version of the L-98 that's single shot and needs cocking each time - the military version can switch from semi-automatic to fully automatic.

 

[MattyDienhoff]

The M16 hasn't been replaced because none of its potential successors improve upon it enough to justify the costs involved in replacing it.

There's also the fact that it doesn't really need replacing.

 

[Wintermoot]

if its in use for 60 years it basicly means it easy to use and reliable stuff like this and computers are entirly different

 

[Downfall89]

It was replaced by the M4 already.

Yeah, I thought it was? Because the M4 is lighter or something?

 

[gh0ti]

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?

Ah, the RAF section... Happy days, even if I couldn't shoot for shit. (Well, comparatively. Anyone can use a rifle; it's not particularly difficult)
The flying was fun though!
I'm fairly sure that it's just the cadet version of the L-98 that's single shot and needs cocking each time - the military version can switch from semi-automatic to fully automatic.

The Cadet version has the gas parts removed, which is why it functions as a bolt-action. The cocking handle is also much larger, so that children can operate it with their right hand, meaning they don't have to support so much of the weight of the weapon when cocking it/performing safety drills. The military version also (usually) has a SUSAT scope attached, rather than iron sights.

 

[Sacman]

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...

 

[sansamour14]

i find it weird that the army always has to go with something that is extremely easy to use as if assuming ppl that join are idiots id prefer and extra week in training with a weapon that may have more features that might just save my life and the m16 or m4 has proven to not be the most reliable weapon in the world especially in the environments we are using it in

 

[Major_Tom]

Yeah, they should have done it years ago, and with something that doesn't use the direct impingement. Also, bullpup would be nice but Americans are too conservative for that. Oh, and one more thing: Stop making forward assists - they are useless!

 

[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.