Replacement rifle for the aging AR series

H

H&K_Sniper

New member
I as wondering what the opinion is out there?:

What would make a good replacement rifle for the aging AR series rifles currently in use with all branches of the US military?

Let me know what you think!!

Thanks!

Im not sayin its gonna happen I just want to know what your opinion is or what you think the Defense Dept. MIGHT PICK if we EVER get new rifles.
 
Keep the same basic weapon, just change the gas system to a short or long stroke gas piston setup like most other gas operated autoloaders - see AK, FAL, HK G36. etc - instead of the direct gas impingement method of operation which causes the M16/AR15 design so much trouble with fouling.

The benefits would be innumerable in terms of testing, design, retooling, retraining, re-equipping. The entire lower portion of the current M16/AR15 weapons could be retained with little or no alterations. The uppers are all that would have to be changed - and probably not all that much - such that current supplies and machinery wouldn't have to be altered all that much.

Also, you'd have a more reliable weapon.

The simple fact is that the rotating bolt/gas piston method of operation for autoloading rifles hasn't been practically improved upon since it's inception. In other words, nothing significantly new and better has come along to justify a move towards an entirely new rifle system. (Caseless ammo just doesn't seem a likely candidate despite all the work done by HK on the G11 years ago).
 
How about the magnificient M-14, it shoots real bullets, is very reliable and we were winning the Vietnam War until we switched over to that Poodle Shooter. ;)

7th
 
I like much of what Higgins says. Indeed, I have never had a complaint about the M16's LOWER reciever.

Here's a List of mods I came up with a while ago:

1) Shorter/collapsable stock.

2) Reinstate full auto.

3) Smooth bore.

4) Fin-stabilized steel core ammunition. 50grn.

5) 18" barrel.

6) Shotgun type sighting rail.

7) Lightweight handgaurd that extends 2" beyond muzzle.

8) Foregrip.

9) Polished internals.

10) Elimination of bizarre "T" chargind handle. Replace with conventional handle on left side of reciever.
 
I can't see them replacing the M16 series Rifle. Just more updates. First A1. Then A2. Now the M4.

I think we are pretty staying with the AR15 until the technology exists to mass produce a non conventional weapon. Perhaps a pulse firing weapon of some sort. I know we think...nahhhh..it's a long way from now but I don't think so.

Just look at the Microwave oven. If someone would have told you 50 years ago that they would be so popular and in just about every household in America you would say they were crazy.

Good Shooting
RED
 
Something with a little larger and more powerful round than a 223. Say a third of the way between 223 and 308. And definitely go to a better gas system.

I hate to say this cause it sounds like jumping on the "newer is better" bandwagon, but since many of our encounters would be in towns/cities, I'd say maybe a bullpup design to reduce overall length?
 
Unless we're talking about a technological jump, like to the HK G11, it looks like we're stuck with the M-16 family. Even countries with "better" rifles are switching to it. I guess it's not such a bad rifle any more. As far as going to a 6mm, the DOD talked seriously about that in the '70s and decided against it, since we had already screwed NATO with the 7.62 to 5.56 switch.

I like the AUG, Galil, G36, HK33, etc. better, but since we passed up switching to the cheaper and mostly better AR18 30 years ago, I don't think we'll change now.
 
H&K G36 and I'd like to see the .223 go away. It just doesn't instill confidence in me. Let's bump it up to a 120gr bullet and keep the velocity over 3,000fps. I think we can do this AND keep the cartridge size low.

Ooooooooor, I'll take the 55gr bullet at 6,000fps, but that'll take some serious materials engineering. A 22-250 would be a nice start, but I think it would have trouble feeding on full-auto.
 
they wont switch from the 223,,,,,,they are already having a problem with recruits complaining about the recoil of the 223...
 
There's nothing wrong with the M16 series of rifles, and nothing has really come along that performs much better. A while back the U.S. army did the ACR contest, and none of the rifles there shot any better than the M16. The only thing I'd like to see is, as stated earler, an improved gas system. Aside from that, I think the M16 series is about the best you can do, because it's got true modularity. Need a shorter weapon, change the upper. Need a sniper rifle, change the upper. Also, the 5.56 bullet isn't that bad, especially at the engagement ranges that it's used at (although I do like the 7.62 better). But if you want a fully automatic infantry rifle, we're gonna have to stick with the M16 (or else our recruits are going to have to get a whole lot beefier).
 
How about going back to the old reliable M-14 with a bush length barrel and BM-59 style folding stock. I got one like this and it's freakin' AWSOME!!!:D
 
What?

Recoil? I never heard any complaints!!! Despite what is trolled around, the average infantryman cannot engage targets with any rifle past the effective range of the M16A2.

Up close and personal, the 5.56 mm NATO is downright nasty.

Shooting M855 ball ammo, I kept 75 rounds on a 2'x4' target with a 3 MOA aiming point at 600 meters from the unsupported prone position with standard iron sights. At that range, the bullet is still moving at 1300 FPS, more than sufficient to create a casualty.

I doubt any enemy would be able to return effective fire at that distance with such a wound.
 
I see 7.62mm NATO being mentioned quite often. This is a battle rifle cartridge.

5.56mm is an assault rifle cartridge.

In discusing the 16's upgrade or replacement, one needs to state if they are proposing the retirement of the entire assault rifle
concept.
 
chattergun

I've heard some people throw around the idea of what I call a chattergun...a relatively low powered weapon that has low recoil and a high rate of fire, completed with a large magazine, with the idea of gaining firefight superiority. The suggestion I heard was for a little lightweight machine carbine in something similar to .22 Hornet. Such a gun, IMHO, would be fun as fun gets for rolling coffee cans with full auto fire, or grinding cinder blocks to dust, but I don't know if it'd be the best idea to replace the M16, which while firing a small bore round, at least fires a rifle cartridge.
 
Battle/assault

Its well known the standard M855 ammo out-penetrates M80 ball at longer ranges (200 m+) The only advantage going to a heavier bullet would have would be for cross-wind resistance.

War has become highly mechanized and remote. The rifle was once the heart of the battle but as we are witnessing now, is only the final cleanup. No one questions the effectiveness of the A2 in such a role.

We do not have a need for 6000 yard shots as they simply do not exist in the infantry. 1200 yards is a stretch for a .50 BMG employed in a sniper role.

Getting back to the thread, I believe the A2 will fill the needs for another 15 years. The lead-free ammo needs to be "approved" by Dr. Fackler :D and AP should only be authorized for the M249.
 
7th Fleet

your post?????

-------How about the magnificient M-14, it shoots real bullets,

REAL BULLETS?????

That's funny I've seen quite a few men hit (KIA & WIA) that probably thought the M-193 wasn't a fake bullet.



------is very reliable and we were winning the Vietnam War until we switched over to that Poodle Shooter.____

Seems to me while the US military was incountry we held the battle field. Also the ARVN did pretty well until Washington pulled the rug from under them.

My personal opinion is the M-16A2 will provide what is needed for the next 10-15 years. I only would like to see going back to the M-193 ball and changing the barrel twist to 1-14" (unstable). Not quite as accurate out at 600 yards but who shoots to 600 yard anyway but it makes one big exit wound.

Turk

Turk
 
Ditto the 1-14" twist rate. If one elects not to go for smooth bores, that is.

I like the lighter grain slugs and also believe that the 16 should be an assault rifle, not a battle rifle. Giving the weapon a heavier barrel and a weightier slug to throw was an attempt to turn the assault rifle back into a battle rifle.

An assult rifle is intended to fire burts at opposing infantry that are jinking and jumping to cover. Burst firing is one of the main reasons that the intermediate round was conceived.
 
I like Shin's list of Mods. Then again - I think I would rather just have an HK 53
HK53A3left.jpg


For calibers, .223 is good place to start. I would hate to have to get all new magazines! But how about an upgrade to the .223? Take that .223 case and stuff a .30 cal bullet into it... then you have the .300 whisper. I REALLY like that round. Take an HK 53 or G-36C and chamber it in .300 Whisper with a suppressor attached to that... Yeah Baby!
g36cfire.jpg


I don't know about reguar infantry or 11 Mikes... but Light I and Rangers sure could use that extra bit of stealth!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top