Replacement rifle for the aging AR series

oh brother...

All of the M14/M1 Garand folks here remind me of the debates from last decade on the retirement of the battleships in the Navy.

There is also much disinformation being spread. The twist rate has very little to do with the tumbling. For the M193 or M855 to be stable in flesh, the twist rate would have to on the order of several turns per inch, not several inches per turn. All FMJ bullets tumble eventually upon impact; shorter ones like the M193 and M855 do it quicker. Going to a larger caliber with a longer bullet would decrease the effectiveness.

One more question: What battles have US armed forces fought where the M16A2 was inadequate? In Somalia, even the 7.62 X 51 sniper rifles were having problems.
 
For the life of me I can't remember where...it was either HKPRO or Sniper Country, where a big thread about abandoning the .223 started up. I recall that the preference for the .223, among other things, was that it was LESS likely to kill a soldier. The logic was that fellow troops would attempt to help that soldier, thus representing more and easier targets. Wierd logic, but it sounds interesting.

I definitely think the urban ops (MOUT I think the current acro is) issue will dictate. Most of what the military seems to be working on are small teamed tactics in urban settings. In a setting like that, not including specialized jobs (sniper, equipment support, things like that), what scenario/task represents the need for a heavier cartridge?

Though I have to admit, a suppressed G36 chambered for .300 Whisper does get my blood pumping. :D
 
To fill all infantry roles I think you need two basic rifles.

The .223 is excellent for CQB and the .308 is better at anything past 250 yards. Sure the .223 holds excellent accuracy out to 500y but it does so with too little energy.

The M-4 is an excellent choice and I think it should be retained but I also think the M-14 should be integrated back into service. In doing this a typical Marine fire team could be equipped with; 1 M-4, 1 M-4 with M203, 1 M-14, 1 M-249 SAW. Likewise a Squad (consisting of 3 fire teams) would have 3 M-4’s, 3 M 4’s with M203, 3 M 14’s and 3 M249 SAW’s. Reinforce this squad with a M240 Gulf and you have what is needed as the battle field transitions from urban terrain to open country and back to urban. Such a squad could more effectively engage the likely variety of targets then the same with a single battle rifle.
 
The M-4 is pretty good... it's size and ergonomics make it perfect for fighting. There is just one little problem. IT'S STILL AN AR!
Same issues with ejection and gas.

There are three new rifles out there that would fit the bill PERFECTLY.
The TAVOR, the G-36 family, and the FN2000.

Take your pick. I'd be happy with any of them.
 
George have you look at the bolt on the TAVOR, G-36, and FN200, the bolt is the same as on any M16/AR15, and the extractor is 100% the same as on the M16/AR15.
 
I don't think...

...it's the AR's rotating bolt that has George riled. Many modern firearms, including my Winchester 1300 pump shotgun, have rotarty bolts.

I think it's the AR's terribly dirty direct gas system that bugs him (and bugs me, being in the Army, and having to clean M16s). I mean, the AR funnels its gas right into the CENTER of the friggin' bolt!
 
The extractor isnt the problem.
The Ejector is just ONE of the problems... The direct gas system is the main reason I don't like it... Ejector is just #2.
 
HK G36

HK g36 does just about everything you ask and has modularity like the m16 system.

True folding stock. Very clean running. Swappable bbl lengths and uppers.

g36.jpg

g36c_r3_c4.gif


Only thing I would save off the m16 is the mag release. Like a push button much more than a flip lever.

The military will keep the m16 until it is completely obsolete and a few thousand troops die unnecessarily. That is the clear history of US small arms development.

Yo
 
Lots of great ideas on this thread-why not a modified AR style with a gas piston as so many have suggested, along with a larger caliber? A 7.62 x 51 would be good or maybe 7mm-08/260 Rem, and update the bullet technology maybe along the lines of the SS series which seems to make the 223 that much more deadly? Effective muzzle breaks so the weapon can be fired full auto without the 3rd and succeeding rounds landing on the moon, along with a side mounted charging handle. Understand the squad automatic should be the same caliber, and this should be something heavier than a 223.
One of the big advantages for the M16A1, we were told, was the light weight of the weapon, and it was true when compared with an M14. The A2 is nearly as heavy as the M14, with the advantage narrowed down to weight of the ammo, which is no doubt important, but in the end, it has to be effective and I can't believe we do not have or cannot develop the technology to make a slightly larger bullet behave the same way as the SS109. One way might be to use the Soviet's idea to hollow the bullet out behind the nose, so the center of weight shifts to the rear, which should make the bullet tumble when it hits, doing more damage?
 
I don't see any real need for a folding stock on a full size rifle, and with a Military that do's not give a lot of firearms training, i think it would be a back id. With a rifle like the G36 that is so light you would have guys folding the stock up, and holding the rifle out with two hands shooting it.
Now for SEALs, and Ranger's, and so on it would be a good id to have a folding stock carbine, and i would like to see some good iron sights put on the G36 Rifles/Carbines.
 
G36 looks good to me, but I think the M 16 will be around for a long time.
The M 14 is more reliable and has more reach.
An intersesting compomise might be an M14 with fiberglass E2 stock to keep the weight down in .243 or .260. Maybe 18-20 inch barrel.
 
The reason the M855 and M193 projectiles tumble on impact is they are short in length and small in diameter. Given enough distance of travel, most bullets will tumble.

Going to a larger diameter and heavier weight would reduce the tumbling.

As far as the gas system being "dirty",this is only a problem with those that think a "white-glove" clean firearm is necessary when using quality ammo. Feed it junk and it can fail to function but feed it quality ammo and you can fire until the barrel is completely copper-fouled.

I have shot my mil-spec clone over 1000 rounds w/o any gas system cleaning. It continues to function perfectly.
 
Scrap the Concept

Scrap the concept of shooting to create casuelties, in the types of Urban/Brushfire fighting our forces have been lately engaged in, an immediately dead foe is more desireable than one who is merely wounded and requires backup aid, thus tieing up support
personell, transportation, facilities,supplies,Yadda-yadda:rolleyes:
Scrap the Geneva Accord and load the mags of our .223's with a mix of HP's SP's! = People shot with multiple rounds of expanding hi vel bullets tend to die quickly. The FMJ bullet is a compromise to an international accord that has outlived it's usefulness, as the people our forces are likely to be engaged with don't play by those rules.
 
The AR fans always say.

"If you feed it QUALITY ammo..."
"If you use GOOD GI magazines"
"If you do YOUR part..."


Look, I've been impressed by an M16 before. My M16A1 went for a week in the field, on the ground, and in the rain, and lived to fire about a hundred blanks, and it only sputtered two or three times. Of course, after that exercise, the gas system was so rusted it had to be sent in to be fixed, but that's unavoidable, I guess (It rained for three days straight).

I'm not talking about white glove here. I'm talking about turning your M16 back into the Armorer. It has to be CLEAN. Cleaning a direct gas weapon to the Armorer's satisfaction is a time consuming process, as you have to strip the rifle down right to the inside of the bolt and scrape it with a wire brush to get the carbon fouling out. Cleaning the insides of the Receiver is a pain, too, and you can't even get the inside of the entire gas tube.
 
If you only knew....

What carrying an M14 with a standard combat load was like, you would't complain about cleaning the M16. IMHO, cleaning the M16 with the given materials and equip[ment is downright simple compared to a M14 or M1A. I usually gave mine a good dosing of CLP before I left the field and by the time I was back at post/camp, the gunky stuff just wiped off.

On the company armorer...most are glorified supply clerks, cross-trained in small arms repair. The way things rolls down hill, a dirty arm in his room makes him look bad. Little tricks like using the firing pin to scrape carbon from the carrier (look at every firing pin, it will have the ring where it contacts the lip of the carrier when Joe does this) only serve to accelerate wear. The obsession with white glove clean is a hold-over from the corrosive priming days which ended with the introduction of the M16.

Its not a problem with the rifle, its a problem with the leadership. White glove clean isn't necessary! But as the saying goes, the US__ is 226 years of tradition, unhampered by progress.
 
The BS thing about the AR is that IT REQUIRES YOU to have to SCRAPE THAT CARBON OUT IF IT!!!

WHY? Because it blows the carbon rich gasses BACK INTO THE ACTION!

Do this... Open up your computer case and take a DUMP right on the motherboard. Do this for about a week. See how your computer runs. Your AR is the same way. Take your clean and fresh AR and fire 100 rounds through it. Take a look at all the parts - watch the carbon build up. Fire another 100 and examine it. Fire another 100 and look at that carbon build up. In the bolt carrier, where the firing pin fits... Do the same with oh say... an FAL. Sure the FAL gets dirty too - but it isnt nearly the same thing. Not even close.
 
So what's your favorite method of cleaning your rifle while ducking enemy fire in a muddy slit trench?

White glove clean? How about functionally clean?

What was your MOS anyway?

Yeah, the 16 is lighter than the 14. But there ARE more reliable weapons out there and we should have had them!!!

The number one requirement of a service rifle is reliability. ALL other requirements, such as weight, accuracy, and ergonomics are important, but SECONDARY.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top