Replacement rifle for the aging AR series

Touchy people round here...

FYI, I was 12B. Not exactly a rifleman but never more than an arm's reach away from mine. The first M16's were junk and fielding an arm under such a rushed schedule was a first. If I remember correctly, it took 15 years of development for the A2 variant.

The carbon that is deposited is high in graphite, a natural lubricant. Modern powder is coated with graphite to prevent caking and to offer an anti-static property. The buildup in the bolt areas is self-limiting as evidenced by my rifle. The gas system issue was resolved back in the '60's.

As far as reliability goes, my experience with the M16, A1 and A2 variants and the AR15 A2 have all been trouble-free when shooting real ammo. We trained using dummies mixed in to simulate problems but I don't count those. Blanks don't count either as the BFA is just a training device. The only time my rifle was ever "white glove" clean was when I was checking it back into the unit arms room. I guess being in the field kept me from having to clean rifles to stay busy like the rest of the REMF's.

I would never disgrace my computer like that George. I will place a wager that your car/truck has a device in it that channels exhaust back to the intake manifold unless you've rpped the thing out. This little system actually reduced oxides of nitrogen, a component of smog.


HAPPY BIRTHDAY USMC!
 
I would replace the aging M16 with the aging G3. Much more reliable with less maintenance. Better caliber and more energy.

Down side: heavy, and even the ammo weighs more.

G36 would be my second choice without the folding stock for reasons already mentioned.

Downside: expensive.

I like the M16/M4/AR series, I even own a Bushmaster M4, I just don't think I'd want one in battle.
 
The AR is not aging. Physics of the modern self loading battle rifle has just about reached the zenith in the AR. Chemical energy weapons in all roles on the battlefield have reached the limits of the physics involved. This includes artillery and tank killing rounds.

The AR will be around for a good long while. So will the zenith in handgun technology, the Glock.

Those of you who recommend the M14, please. It is a fine weapon but it is at least a generation behind the AR for many reasons.

We are a long way from Captain Kirk's Phaser, but I think that kind of weapon will be the next step.

Not for combat, but if you want a really fine urban defense rifle in .223 check out the Ruger Mini-14. Light and handy. Accurate to 100 yards. Totally reliable. And cheap. A Mini-14 can be had for the price of a good handgun in a major caliber. 500 dollar or less range.
 
12B Combat Engineer. Nice. Not the same thing as 11B. Not nearly. High in Graphite? Nice - when it builds up to the point that your AR no longer functions... Just remember that its a natural lubricant.

And YES. I ripped it out. A cold air intake increases performance... sucking in hot air is not that great. Burns cleaner? Only because the engine heats up faster. This is at the cost of performance and in some applications as much as 20%. Emissions controls are a nice idea... but 20% is too much.
 
Any design can be improved. Unless you want to preech the infalability of Stoner.

Poeple have been tweaking and upgrading the 1911 for decades. The same should be done for the AR series. Espescially that stupid charging handle. It should go to a conventional design on the left side of the receiver, or to the original design, inside the carrying handle.
 
Concerning MOS

Mine was 11Bravo. My M-16 NEVER failed me. I've had mine in rice paddies, covered with dust, monsoons etc. etc. I've said this before I never new of one jamming in my platoon.

This stuff about cleaning your rifle. Of course you have to clean the 16 or any other rifle you use in combat.

This morning I took out my L1A1 and walking to the firingline with 6 full mags. I thought to myself boy I'm gald I humped a 16 in country over a M-14 as the 16 ammo is a lot lighter and I could carry more of it.

Turk
173rd Abn. Bdge (Sep)
RVN 68-69
 
I do not think the rifles are going to change much but the ammunition may. I read an article a while ago about low recoil high velocity ammo (5.56 size case) that shot a 20gr finned dart at somewhere in the 6000+ fps range. It shot almost flat out to 500 meters. I think there were some questions to its lethality. I need to check my articles to see if I can come up with the info again.
 
THANKS

Thanks to everyone who posted a reply!

Oh and Im iclined to agree with all of those who named the G36 family, if only it would happen..............

Oh and keep the posts coming!
 
Now, George! :) My father led a squad as the first unit to get to the bridge at Remagen. Well, bridges are part of the Combat Engineers' bidness, right? Patton got there, later...

:D, Art
 
My instructor yesterday was recalling the switchover from the 14 to the 16.

He really liked the idea of the lighterwight, softer recoiling 16, but pointed out that these qualities could have been added to the 14.

His idea:

M14 with an 18 in barrel, lighter weight synthetic stock with PG, possibly folding, action buffer along the lines of the "Buffer tech", effective muzzle break. He had more to say on this but I really can't remember right now. It was clear however that he was in favour of discarding the assault rifle concept. I'm not.

For the sake of discource, let us all say that the M16 is very reliable. Very well. But. ANYTHING can be improved. So offer up some ideas for improvement instead of restating that you simply can not comprehend anything better than the current version of the 16. Go over things like stock length, ammunition type, action mods, things like that. It makes the thread much more enjoyable.

Someone mentioned going back to the 1-14" rifling. Good. Hyper velocity psuedo-fletchettes were mentioned. Good. Interesting. Keep in mind also that ground troops in the near future are going to be equiped with much more effective personal armor than they have in the past.
 
I don't think velocity is the answer... Going to a 1-14 twist does two things. 1. It lets the bullet fly a little faster. 2. It just only puts enough spin on it to let it fly straight. Once it hits something... like the target... the bullet becomes drastically unstable and has a much greater wounding potential. Problem is that if can be destabled by a twig... some grass... leaves...
No. I dont think 1-14 is the way to go.
I think a .30 caliber bullet is the way to go.
A bigger hole means more tissue is destroyed.

An operating rod means you get to fire it more reliably.
A fixed ejector means you get to fire it more reliably.

Some sort of optical gunsite will let you make hits faster and more reliably.

I think I just described a VEPR II with an Aimpoint.
 
The Marines are currently switching to a 3 rb version of the M4. Removable carry handle, so an ACOG or other sighting device can be added. I haven't heard any complaints from 0311 recruiter here in DuBois. He really likes the 16. The M4 is even better, because it's lighter. For the record, I haven't done any service, until Dec. 3. As for the OICW, :barf:
 
As I know it, the versions of the M4 are as follows:

US Carbine, Cal. 5.56mm, M4
safe-semi-burst trigger group
A2 carry handle and sights

US Carbine, Cal. 5.56mm, M4A1
safe-semi-auto trigger group
detachable carry handle w/ A2 sights

Are you sure the "new" version the Marines are getting has 3RB? It seems to me that they issued the regular M4 before the M4A1. If there WAS a version of the M4 with a detachable carry handle and 3RB, wouldn't they call it the M4A2?
 
BREAKING NEWS:
"The replacement for the M-16 is ANOTHER M-16!"

M-4... Gimme a freaking break. You shorten the barrel and its still an M-16. The M-4 doesnt warrant its own name, IMHO.
I don't care if it has a removeable handle, shorter barrel, or anything else... It is still an M-16.
Now, this is me ranting about it despite the fact that I love shorter lengths in rifles and carbines. But regardless... its still a variant of the M-16.
 
I think that the .223 has proven itself as a killing cartridge. However, I would like to see a select fire battle rifle in a .26 caliber. The 6.5 bore has a lot going for it, sectional density, ballistic coefficent, I do not have to rehash all of its good points to riflemen in the know. Barring that a 7mm or .28 would be a great compromise.
As far as actions, both the AK, AR and the FAL have a lot of age on them but I do not see them going anywhere soon. They all have certain advantages that have been recognized by their respective user groups. I own all three and shoot all three. If i was a third world country with limited resources and funds, a medium bore AK would be my first choice. Hell, you can beat one out of old tractor fenders, wood and wire and they will shoot until they melt down or the user is killed. For a country like ours, an AR or FAL in 6.5 or 7mm with a 129 to 140 grain projectile at around 3000 fps would kill a pile of bad guys at decent distance and penetrate like a drill bit to boot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top