M16A7

Shin-Tao: What stature are you? You said you'd go for a SHORTER stock!!!? I have an extension on my A2 stock as it is and I still feel it's too short.

I want a grenade-launching barrel that cuts off the gas system with a nub on the grenade. It should only fire with standard ammo (bullet trap in grenade).

I agree that you should stop the barrel at the end of the standard handguards. That would make for about a 14" barrel... hmmmmm, just like the M-4.

Use a gas-tube impingement system with a bolt carrier that projects into the handguard area but doesn't use the bolt as a piston, just use the gas tube as a piston. Hard to explain, but is a compromise that solves the gas venting problem while keeping the weight and bulk down.

Finally, the mainspring should be in the upper part of the upper receiver where the charging handle now goes. Shorten that damn bolt-carrier and put a rate-reducing buffer in the rear of the receiver. Buttstock should fold to the left, charging handle on the left also, fixed, and bent like the GALIL.

Oh, and hooked butt for the offhand to grip when your shooting it off the ... OH YEAH, off the integral bipod!!

F*** it, just buy the G-36K.
 
Personally I would like to see
-Better Magazines
-A selector level with safe/semi/burst/full
-Eliminate the carrying handle, replace with a sight rail
-An ACOG TA11 scope
-A better sling for more tactical carry
 
Land Warrior is getting smaller

Shin-Tao,
Like it or not some version and some parts of Land Warrior will hit the field in a usable form sooner rather then later.

They used a fiber-optics look around corner viewer at Ft Polk last September. From the pics in Soldiers Magazine it looked pretty light weight and handy. I don't know about batteries, etc. but I'll bet a case of Shiner that some parts of the system are in the field in a usable form before the Army phases the last M16A1 out of the RC. I'd rather trade the extra pound you'd gain with an operating rod system for the ability to look around corners in MOUT for the same weight.

Sorry about bringing the cleanliness issue up. Was interupted by a phone call right after I started my post and must have lost my train of thought.

As for the ZM and Steyr AUG, I don't think anyone has tested the ZM to the extent that I'd buy it off the shelf for military use. Looks neat in your safe, but has it been cold soaked in the arctic, or submergeged for hours, dried off and fired? Has a rifle platoon taken them to the field for 45 days, and generally used and abused them? As for the Steyr AUGs relability in combat, the Australian Army recently bought M4s from Colt to arm the troops they sent to East Timor.

This isn't to say that none of the other changes suggested couldn't be made to work, but many of them require enough re-engineering that you might as well develop an entirely new weapon. I understood the question to be more about what the next generation of M16 would be.

BTW I look at the M16 as an "assault rifle". By my definition it would have to be a .30 caliber to be a battle rifle.

Jeff
 
IIRC, the AUGs that were used by the Australian army were made under contract in Australia, and had a lot of QC problems. The Austrian AUGs are very reliable.

Don't know about the testing that the ZM has gone through, but I find it hard to believe that adding an op-rod system to an AR-15 could make it less reliable.

Also, why do you say that adding an op-rod system to an AR would add a pound to the weight? The only parts you'd need to add would be a gas regulator on the sight block, a larger gas tube, and a piston. Those parts off my FAL weigh less than half a pound together.

Later,
Chris
 
My suggestions

The round has plenty of range as I have experienced when shooting 500+ yards on human-sized targets. Extending the range could be done by adopting the SS-109 bullet weight in a lower drag configuration. Skip the cannelure as traditionally done and create a machined buttress groove in the bullet. Plenty of resistance to telescoping and much better on the BC. While you're at it, increase the boat-tail length.

On the rifle, I would start with the barrel. Abandon the M203 fancy and go with a full diameter, fluted barrel. Same weight, better rigidity. Make the combat rifle a 24" barrel to take better advantage of the heavy bullet loading. REMF's get a standard 20".

Sights. Infantry gets ACOGS with irons as back-up. REMF's get irons only. Add tritium front sights for all with 0.052" 0.052" width.

Handguards. Replace the kludge system with a free-floating system. Attach sling to it, not barrel or front sight. Make the barrel-tube interface allow for free-float but also support the barrel under heavy barrel stress. The barrel can deflect a fraction of an inch but then be supported by the tube. Make the tube very stout so any bayonet or other induced stress is dealt without barrel bending.

Magazines. High quality is important here. Stainless steel is the only way to go as it never wears out. Coat it with the wonder finishes on the inside and black oxide on the out.

Cleaning and basic care issues. Include a front sight adjusting tool on one end of the T-handle. Dry lube for the bolt/carrier as it eliminates dirt issues. VCI packet in buffer for corrosion protection. This stuff WORKS! Of course its yearly service but any Joe or Grunt can DX the buffer. De-program the military that a "white-glove clean" rifle is necessary. Yes, that's what I said. My AR is spotless reliable and I never "white-glove" clean it. Dry moly works but is quite nasty looking. One-piece cleaning rods in the arms room! Issue to the Joes and grunts when they return from qualification and DON'T allow the segmented rods to be used unless its field cleaning!!!!!

Keep the burst. In an NBC environ, the burst rules. In long range, first round accuracy counts. I would like a controlable rate from say 500 to 1200 RPM but that requires an extensive parts swap. I'd like to have a 6" dispersion at 25 meters adjustable to a 6' dispersion at 600 meters. Isn't going to happen so I'll take the 6" at 25.
 
Remember the Short Lived Rhino Conversion

Christopher II,

The only operating rod conversion I've any experience with is the Rhino kit that was sold several years ago. IIRC it added about a pound to the weight. I have a friend who still has one, I'll have to check on the weight.

I know that the AUGs were license built in Australia. I'm not a fan of the bullpup design for general military use because you are restricted to shooting from one shoulder all the time. I know the AUG is convertable, but who's going to stop their squad in the middle of a firefight and change them over before you move around the next corner?

As for bullet effectiveness, there was an article in "Infantry" a couple issues ago promoting a change to 6mm. I don't see that happening in the immediate future either although the author makes some good points.

I'm against anything that is going to substantially increase the weight without a significant increase in performance. Once we get our weapons into the 8-9 pound range and then start hanging the other high tech things that are either already in the inventory (M68 CCO, AN/PAQ-4, AN/PVS-4) or in development and nearing the point they'll be fielded (thermal weapons sight, Land Warrior components etc.) we'll be up into the 12-13 pound range, without adding an ammunition load. Add an M203 to that and we're getting way up there in weight.

I think until there is a major breakthrough in technology we are reaching the limit of what we can do with small arms development. We're really just tweaking the design or incorporating other older ideas into different combinations. I wonder what the next technology break through will be? But that's an idea for a different thread....

Jeff
 
BTW, Poodleshooter, do you have any more info on those "Rhino" conversions? Are they still available? Where can I find out more about them?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen one in ages. It was mostly an issue for Class III boys, as it allowed an easy change in the cyclic rate. You could get 2 or three round bursts easily, and you could also cycle it up, beat the hell out of your buffer and bolt carrier and watch the pretty brass fly! The main reason for the weight gain was in the modified gas key and bolt carrier. The front sight assembly and gas tube were also beefed up and altered. Rhino used a VERY beefed up key and carrier assembly to handle the gas rod. The key sorta had a series of shock buffers in it IIRC. The best place to ask about this is on http://www.AR15.com I believe that they now have a link to the old board somewhere on the front page announcements. Just do a search on "Rhino" and you should get something.
 
Stock length:

While wearing nothing more than a tee-shirt or denim jacket, the stocklength is fine.

But while clad in thick USGI "ballistic" vets, field jackets, LBE, or cold wheather clothing, the stocklength is a little anoying. Keep in mind, I veiw assault rifles from the eye of a doorkicker and don't theorise a lot about wide-open field shots. (I have no idea how to use a scope)
Moving and firing inside a building usualy makes me want a shorter stock.
In general I find a stock that is too short less troublesome than a stock that is too long.

With respect to Land Warrior and other advanced Force Multiplying systems; I'm personaly not fond of such ideas. Moisture seepage, electronic jamming, breakage, EMP effect, the KISS principal, all combine to make me very unenthusiastic. But that is just me, and I am a stick in the mud.

Now I do like GPS, SATCOM, and the odd IR or low-light device, but not usualy on my rifle or helmet.

-Old Fart


[Edited by Shin-Tao on 02-23-2001 at 05:14 PM]
 
Since when is an operating rod a pound? I dont remember that in any of the books I've read, and I dont remember that when sitting down to a table of rifle parts. The weight argument needs to be tossed out. You want to save weight? Switch the plastic furniture to carbon fiber. You'll save 20% of the weight and have the same strength. Landwarrior will always be heavy for at least another 20 years. Why? Batteries are heavy.
Anyway we are talking RIFLE not Accessories.
And with the rifle - I'll happily take an Operating Rod over Direct Gas.

Direct Gas - That is the worst thing to come out for Military Arms since the Chau-Chat:
381.jpg
 
What I'd do to improve the M-16 is to first; remove the stock,the carrying handle, the upper reciver, the lower reciver, the charging handle, the bolt, the rear sights, the front sights, the barrel, the gas tube, the hand gaurds, and any other part I missed and throw them all in the nearest trash can. (Because it's not worthy to be recycled.) and buy a rugged, reliable, full auto, easy to strip, easy to clean, and dependable rifle. basically anything that Stoner did not make. ( I love the M-16's non adjustable/adjustable sight.) " Hey, excuse me MR. enemy! Could stop shooting at me for a second while I use a round to adjust my front sight? And then use a special tool to clear my triple feed?" (True story about the triple feed. Almost blew my freaking hand off.)
 
Eww, that's a picture I DID NOT expect to see. Looks just as ill-designed as the one on display at Huntington's in Oroville, CA. Now there's a (French-written, of course) book out there extolling the virtues of that 8mm Lebel piece' de' kaka...
 
Sorry for insulting this august group with an image of such utter garbage, but I felt nothing else communicated the point better.
 
On Stock Length:

I'm a tall, generally long person. The problem I have is that my right arm is bent WAY too much when I use the midget stocks you find on most modern rifles. I've noted that the M-4 stock is long enough when extended but can be moved slightly forward for heavy clothing or body armor or further forward still for those who are vertically challenged. Wonder if you can skull-whack somebody with the M-4 stock without breaking it?

Carrying the M-14 or M-1 Garand is, for me, like carrying a standard M-16A2 is for somebody of average height. That having been said, I can understand why a light rifle might be advantageous from a carrying point of view. Problem is, you lose out in controllability. A 9 pound M-16 is easier to control than a 6.5 pound M-4.

I think that an 8 pound (loaded) rifle is optimum. Just make the M-4 barrel thicker and fluted and put an aluminum folding stock on and you get a significant improvement in durability and controlability.
 
i read a book called "dead center," by ed kugler, which is about his tour as marine sniper in vietnam. he tells about the first major battle he took part in once the M-16A1's arrived. his recon group ended up helping out some grunts in a firefight, and he picked up 3 M16's in a row off of dead soldiers before he found one that worked!! that is ridiculous. i have a beat up MAK-90 that i have never cleaned that functions flawlessly. sure it may only shoot a one foot group at 100 yards, but how big is the COM on a man???????????? i would like to get an AR-15 just because they look cool. but the AK would be out the door with me in a heartbeat for any situation other than target shooting.
 
At the UT TFL Gathering I had the chance to fire a unfamiliar AK. Long range targets, my 3 shot hit the Clay... the other Clay got a lot of dirt splatter... They may not be that accurate - but that AK fired EVERY TIME. If I was shooting at a DUDE sized target - I'ld have hit it plenty of times... That second 3 inch Clay was just plain lucky.

Now.
If Accuracy is the only issue with the AK - Take a hard look at the VEPRs that Robinson is importing. They are shockingly accurate.
Problem Solved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top