idea for a new infantry rifle- hear me out

R

rhs77430

Inactive
so i've been thinking, the us army has been looking for a new piston-driven carbine, to replace or upgrade the current m4 carbine. Popular candidates include the SCAR the XCR, the ACR, the H&K, but some very viable candidates have been overlooked. I want you to consider something out of left field.
SU16Ewallpaper.jpg

I think this is not taken seriously enough. if kel-tec beefed up that barrel, made the receiver out of steel, got rid of the folding part, just had the receiver one piece, and put more metal parts (trigger), but kept same design, bolt, etc, added a 3 round burst capability, you've got yourself a goddamn good rifle. thoughts?
 
So basically... you Want Kel tec to produce an hk416...

What could that hodgepodge possibly do that the m4 cant already?... NTM that when you take away the fold up capability of the Kel tek, you take away the reason to buy the su16... its a fold up carbine. To do anything else with it would be... for lack of a better word, Retarded.
 
as far as i know there are no reliability issues with the m4, the issue is reports that its barrel is too short to make use of the 223 round and has max effective range of 50 metre. I dont know if i believe that but thats what i've read anyway.

Would the rifle above really do any better?
 
gotcha

see your point coyote, so make the receiver steel, but keep the foldability. is that a word? :D but yeah esp if made with the 16" barrel, it would have a farther effective range than a 14 1/2 inch m4 barrel. also, you could have only a select few manufactured with the m203 cuts to mount it, most would have a thick, heavy barrel.
 
I wouldn't feel comfortable with arming the military with a rifle made by a company that can't keep their website malware free.
 
I have a better ideal.

The M16a1 worked great, it was light, it was reliable and accurate.

It's down fall was:

1: The 1:12 twist limited it to light bullets.
2: The sights were not readily adjustable for elevation without using the front sight.

Something that is "NOT" needed, is the piston.

So Go back to the M16a1, add the same weight barrel in 1:7 and the 'A2's rear sight.

Keep the weight the same as the orginal M16A1.

That, in the opinion of one who used the M16 in Combat, would be the perfect battle rifle.

A rifle with added distance, that light weight, and worked in every enviorment our military would find itself in, from the Jungle, desert, and arctic.

PS: Dump that heavy a$$ bayonet and go back to the M-7, it will do anything that needs done plus you can dig a pretty deep hole, pretty dern fast with a lot less weight.
 
Last edited:
As an OIF vet, whose first deployment saw his unit carrying the 'A4s, clearing rooms with 20" muskets gets ridiculous. Riding in Humvees and BFV's with said muskets clanging around also gets ridiculous. Added range is great, but so is the ability to navigate a serpentine staircase and quickly dash out of a vehicle.

And thus, the great "American Combat Rifle Debate: Why Everyone's Choice Sucks (But Not As Much As The M4)" continues. :D
 
@11b do you think an 16 inch or 18 inch barrel could effectively split the difference? and yeah haha everyone has their own ideas about what the army/marines should use. I'm not saying the kel tec is the best choice, i'm just pointing out that it is overlooked, when perhaps it COULD be a decent choice.
 
I own the KelTech SU16 while it is more reliable than the bottom feeder AR15 types as noted from carbine classes and as an owner starting 1972 of 4 Colt ARs starting with an A1 type all the way to the A2 HBAR "I sold them during the markup of prices during the first and second Calif {assult rifle} ban. I have never been at war but if I had a choice between a Keltech or a Colt AR my choice would be with out reservation an AR. The 3 shot burst sucks IMO.The Keltec is no more than a real nice handy light carbine I would say perfect for cop type use. The AR has a 50 year track record and it can be said it works!. I am sure there are complaints and problem areas in all the worlds military rifles .
 
Last edited:
I wish there was a big "yawn" emoticon on here as I'm tired of watching the dead horse being beat. Like already stated several times I'd like to really know how this is a much better option than the M4/M16 rifle currently in use? I've never had a problem with my M16A2 or M4 carbine, except for a few faulty magzines used past their prime.
 
Last edited:
Lets see

XCR has a massive bolt
XCR is simple and not small parts to loose
XCR has superior controls to the Kel Tec and the M4
XCR can change barrel lengths to suit the mission(s)
note: Nothing says you can't have squads with a mix, and bias the majority to what is most likely, but at worst you are as good as an M4.
XCR has a piston (with all due respect, lots of maint read that oil in the Sand Box is not the best idea, yes it can work but it also can be a lot better.

So, Kel Tec has the charging handle on the wrong side. Hmmm.

as far as i know there are no reliability issues with the m4, the issue is reports that its barrel is too short to make use of the 223 round and has max effective range of 50 metre. I dont know if i believe that but thats what i've read anyway.
Click to expand...

Maintenance issues, not reliability if maintained, but the question is why?

Barrel is too short for anything past 300 meters not 50. .223 round is always going to have issues as its primary mission is to go through things (door, armor etc), you just have to hope you kill who you poke the holes through (keep shooting till they drop)

M4 was fine for Iraq, not so good for the longer shoots (most of the time) in Afghanistant. Ergo, changeable barrel would allow that.

Not carrying extra barrel, just a mix so you have some people with the right barrel all the time and the rest in between for going the average.
 
I'm ending this here: SAW's for everyone.

Pros:
No more issues with three-round burst and faulty magazines.

Lack of punch found in the 5.56mm round compensated with volume.

Colt, HK, FN, et al., can race to build the very first SPR M249 barrel.

An infantry squad that consists of 9 machine guns will ensure that video game developers and movie producers will have an easier time coming up with creative content (emphasis on 'creative').

Cons:
M203 + M249 = some sort of weird, awkward, impossible-to-carry black steel abomination. (This can be mitigated by bringing back the M79).

Not enough surface area to cover the entire weapon with rails to attach the latest light/laser/tactical can-opener/Special Forces combat iPod to.

Lack of 'match-grade' replacement parts ensures M249 SPR (SMPG?) project never take off.
 
If the military goes through the trouble and expense of adopting a new rifle, I think they should just jump straight to a bullpup design. The SCARs and ACRs really don't do all that much that the M4 can't already. A bullpup would be the only thing different enough to be worth the investment of money and re-training. it would solve the issue of "We want a long barrel to make proper use of the 223. But short so we can use it in our Humvees when doing drive-bys on terrorists."

Another benefit is being the military's standard issue rifle means that it will soon flood the civilian market. And we all know we don't get enough bullpups :D
 
so i've been thinking, the us army has been looking for a new piston-driven carbine,
Click to expand...
Actually, the US Army has already issued a statement that there is no advantage to a piston-operated rifle, so they are not looking for a piston-operated rifle unless it is attached to a major improvement in performance and suitability for the mission.
 
"I wouldn't feel comfortable with arming the military with a rifle made by a company that can't keep their website malware free."

Because lord knows NO other firearms company has ever been subject to any sort of cyber attack.

I'm not even going to start to go into what's wrong with that concept, Jim, but it would start with a discussion about how Keltec makes guns, but they're not really into web design, and that's why they hire it out. :rolleyes:
 
I think this is not taken seriously enough. if kel-tec beefed up that barrel, made the receiver out of steel, got rid of the folding part, just had the receiver one piece, and put more metal parts (trigger), but kept same design, bolt, etc, added a 3 round burst capability, you've got yourself a goddamn good rifle. thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think there are a lot of good reasons not to take the SU16 seriously as a general-issue military rifle. Not the least of which is that it was never designed for that role and wouldn't survive the tests given to the HK416, SCAR or M4. It was designed as a lightweight ranch rifle.

By the time Keltec could reengineer that basic design to be competitive with the rifles you named, the Improved Carbine Competition would be over and the final product would be nothing like the SU-16. And it would still be built by Keltec, a company that based on what I read in the forums still has trouble with its existing civilian firearms products being less durable or reliable than the civilian market would like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top