Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Good riddance M-16
PowerPointRanger    9/17/2005 1:21:39 PM
It's interesting the while the M-14 has its fans even dacades after its retirement, the pending retirement of the M-16 has generated a reaction more like "How soon?" I never much liked it myself. It was high-maintenance and prone to jam at the worst times. It was also too long and too heavy. It was the under-achieving prima-donna of assault weapons. Plus the current version doesn't come with full auto (unless you know how to modify it).
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15   NEXT
Jungle-Man    RE:Next Generation Assault Rifle   12/28/2005 12:34:57 AM
Well right now the grenade launcher portion of the former OICW has been split off into the XM-25 and is being developed separately as a squad weapon like the SAW. This makes a lot more sense as it allows the operator to be dedicated to the system, and therefore carry more ammunition for it as well as being more proficient. Also they upped the size of the rounds from 20mm to 25mm to allow for more fragments and overall increased lethality. For an assault rifle I would prefer one in 6.5 Grendel if they can ensure reliable automatic feeding with that bottle-necked round, since it has better long range ballistics than the 6.8 SPC and is nearly as hard hitting at close range.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Next Generation Assault Rifle   12/28/2005 1:13:13 AM
>>Like Doggtag, I'd prefer a better, more reliable weapon to one with a lot of expensive electronic bells and whistles. Right now, that stuff, while nice in theory, is still experimental, expensive, and unproven. Not that I'm dismissing the new technology outright. I'm just doubtful that a $10,000 15 lb weapon will ever be standard issue. (Perhaps it will be a squad-level weapon.)<< Which bells and whistles are those? OICW may still be developmental, but in the meantime we already have . . . -- ACOG, MGO -- AimPoint (with EOTech holosights being just about semi-official) -- PVS-7 series, PVS-14s, etc night vision -- PEQ-2 and PAQ-4s, etc. -- Lightweight thermal weapons sights suitable for use on weapons all the way down to M4 carbine. To name a few systems suitable for use on individual weapons, and not to mention tac lights and other fun bells and whistles to hang on the front end of an M4 or M16. The bells and whistles are the wave of the future, and it is reluctance to embrace them, not their use, that puts soldiers' lives in danger. Shek can probably discuss the real world palatability of doing searches and building clearance without tac lights, for instance. I'm basically in agreement with the army study that prompted the OICW -- small arms have reached a stagnation point. The assault/battle rifle was a revolutionary weapon system compared to its bolt-action predecessors, which were themselves revolutionary compared to their single shot breechloading predecessors, etc. Switching from 5.56mm to 6.8mm or adopting the G36/XM8 in lieu of the M16 family is, comparatively, just minor quibbling. The Barret M468 upper or HK M416 or FN SCAR are damned sexy, but are only marginally more capable than the weapon they would replace. It is, consequently, hard to justify spending money on such replacements. It is easier to do so with a weapon system that looks like another technological revolution. Of course all the above is predicated on OICW type technology working as advertised, but, in the long run, it will. The US system may be overly optimistic for 2005 technology, but the idea is out there and less capable but still revolutionary weapons (i.e. Australian AICW, FN's 2000) seem to indicate that someone will make it work sooner rather than later. The US may or may not prove to be the first nation to field such a weapon, but they give every indication of being the next big thing, and I'm pretty sure the 30 years from now archly conservative firearms enthusiasts will be bemoaning whatever new permutation the OICW has taken since the original weapon was great and needed only modest tweaking . . .
 
Quote    Reply

Jungle-Man    RE:Next Generation Assault Rifle-revolutionary   12/28/2005 1:43:22 AM
Well if we are talking about something revolutionary it might be a good idea to dust off the G11 prototypes and simply up the caliber a little, implement some new recoil reduction systems like the one on the AA-12, and you've got yourself quite a revolutionary weapon but one which already passed all the qualification tests for the German army (and they know what they're doing) but was abandoned due to lack of funds and little perceived need.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:Next Generation Assault Rifle   12/28/2005 1:49:54 AM
Seeing as there are just as many proponents to continue with the 5.56 as there are to replace it with something with a little more oomph, my question is: why even pursue the 20-25mm programmable airburst ammo when we can stick with the tried-and-true 40mm M203-type weapons? Don't 40mm grenades carry more punch than a "little" 25mm shell, which might have half the explosive filler? I wouldn't think there would be so great a difficulty in developing an ideal frag pattern and a modified sight for the 203, not if they can purpose-build a 25mm model. I'll also agree that rifle grenades make more sense than making one specific soldier being the squad heavy weapons gunner (as in SAW, M79/M203, OICW/grenade combo, etc). That would allow, with training just like I'll agree on that every infantryman should be pistol-qualified and carrying also, every soldier would be able to engage any targets without shortages in weapons or field-of-fire coverage. All that's really needed is training. The current grenades available can HEDP/HEAT their way through a few inches of steel armor or several inches of aluminum alloy, and can throw the equivalent of a hand grenade's lethality easily 5 times or more as far as a human can pitch one. This also means there could be less dependence on company-or-higher-level fire support for back-up: why call in a strike to take out target A when 1 or 2 hits with RGs will suffice? And it's not like the current crop are all that much heavier: some nations have even trained their troops with something like a ballistic tube that actually mounts their standard-issue hand grenades on the end, and fires off the rifle muzzle. Can't say this is necessarily the best direction to follow, as too many things can go wrong as soon as that pin is pulled, rather than using muzzle blast, launch recoil, or bullet trap priming like has been used by other rifle grenades. I read a considerable amount of data on both the Remington 6.8 and the Grendel 6.5 rounds: in all actuality, match grade ammo for the Grendel gives it downrange energy on par with even 7.62 sniping weapons, to virtually the same ranges, because of the design of the bullet (long and slender prevents it tumbling). But the Remington 6.8 seems to be judged by many to be more easily militarized, for the fact that the complete round is more "common" in its general appearance/dimensions, as opposed to the Grendel's more extreme bottleneck. A handful of individuals who've evaluated both cartridges beside several others, including military rounds, have even suggested that, judging by the Grendel's current match-grade ammo performance, a dedicated AP round (didn't specify tungsten or steel, but I would assume tungsten would be better) would even surpass the current NATO 7.62AP ammo. Others have argued considerably against it (6.5 Grendel), suggesting how many failed 6.5mm cartridges have succumbed to the history books as little-remembered examples, but these rounds have nothing in comparison except external diameter to the new bullets. It still all boils down to personal favoritism, and currently the military high-ups are more interested in PGMs, super warplanes, and futuristic tanks. Small arms for the soldier are currently on the backburner in the US: yeah, there's still research and work being done, but it doesn't take priority like other systems...even with all of us supposed to being infantrymen first and foremost. Perhaps the real problem that could be looked at is the design of the bullets we're firing, not specifically their caliber. There are civilian hunting rounds available that can do far greater wound damage than military grade hardware. Perhaps this is where development needs to focus (like blended metal rounds, among others.) Thing we run into with blended metal ammo though: the military and others question the ethics/morality of using such ammo (because of its increased target damage), yet the private security contractors the US military hires are not bound by that limitation. So it seems the US military needs to get its head on straight and decide once and for all where it stands on the issue, and then regulate what can and can't be used, across the board by both its own personnel AND hired help. After all, it kind of ends up being like someone saying they condemn assassination, but then they pay someone else to do their "on-the-side" work who may actually use those methods. HEH! Now there's a good question of the day: How many publicly-frowned-upon-to-use-them mercenaries does it take to make a publicly legit security consultant firm?
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Next Generation Assault Rifle-revolutionary   12/28/2005 11:17:42 AM
>>Well if we are talking about something revolutionary it might be a good idea to dust off the G11 prototypes and simply up the caliber a little, implement some new recoil reduction systems like the one on the AA-12, and you've got yourself quite a revolutionary weapon but one which already passed all the qualification tests for the German army (and they know what they're doing) but was abandoned due to lack of funds and little perceived need. << The G11 is not revolutionary, it's evolutionary. And was examined by the US Army in the 1980s as a replacement for the M16A2, but failed to demonstrate a 100% improvement in capability. The OICW is claimed to provide a 500% improvement over existing small arms systems. Caseless ammunition remains a possibility for future weapons systems (the US is looking at it for use in a SAW replacement, as well as CTA ammunition, and if such is fielded it is likely future rifles will use the same round), but it is not revolutionary -- it provides some savings in weight, not much more than that. Which was the point the OICW study was making -- without going in a novel direction, small arms design (even with caseless ammunition) has nearly stagnated, and all the new developments (G11, G36, Abakan, SCAR, etc) are just very modest tweaks compared to the OICW concept.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Next Generation Assault Rifle   12/28/2005 12:32:03 PM
>>Seeing as there are just as many proponents to continue with the 5.56 as there are to replace it with something with a little more oomph, my question is: why even pursue the 20-25mm programmable airburst ammo when we can stick with the tried-and-true 40mm M203-type weapons? Don't 40mm grenades carry more punch than a "little" 25mm shell, which might have half the explosive filler? I wouldn't think there would be so great a difficulty in developing an ideal frag pattern and a modified sight for the 203, not if they can purpose-build a 25mm model.<< 40x46mm grenades (i.e. M203 ammunition, not Mk 19 ammunition) has a max range of about 400 meters, representing the actual lob of the round at max ord. OICW with 20mm or 25mm is designed to engage targets out to 1000 meters. It does this by firing at a much higher muzzle velocity than 40mm M203 rounds (meaning, among other things, that one does not need to superelevate the gun beyond the limits of the optic's field of view), more in the range of what a Mk-19 fires its projectiles at. It also does this by using a more ballistically efficient 20 or 25mm projectile. >>I'll also agree that rifle grenades make more sense than making one specific soldier being the squad heavy weapons gunner (as in SAW, M79/M203, OICW/grenade combo, etc). That would allow, with training just like I'll agree on that every infantryman should be pistol-qualified and carrying also, every soldier would be able to engage any targets without shortages in weapons or field-of-fire coverage. All that's really needed is training. The current grenades available can HEDP/HEAT their way through a few inches of steel armor or several inches of aluminum alloy, and can throw the equivalent of a hand grenade's lethality easily 5 times or more as far as a human can pitch one.<< I would simply point out that if rifle grenades were particularly desirable they would likely be in service. The fact that they don't do the job as well as 40mm grenade launchers like the M203 is rather well attested to by the fact that 40mm grenade launchers seem quite a bit more common in the hands of credible military forces than rifle grenades (the Israelis are the only exception I can think of, perhaps France, if you consider them to be credible). I suspect that the reason they are not is that range and accuracy are both very poor compared to an M203, which would make them doubly inferior to an OICW type weapon. >>I read a considerable amount of data on both the Remington 6.8 and the Grendel 6.5 rounds: in all actuality, match grade ammo for the Grendel gives it downrange energy on par with even 7.62 sniping weapons, to virtually the same ranges, because of the design of the bullet (long and slender prevents it tumbling).<< But not the performance of a 7.62mm sniper rifle. Energy is not the whole picture, or even a significant part of it, when it comes to killing. 6.5 Grendel would probably outshoot 7.62x51mm on NRA competition ranges (it should, it is based on 6mm PPC and the like), but a lighter bullet means less thump, especially at range, and no Grendel loads will match M118LR for sniping applications. >>But the Remington 6.8 seems to be judged by many to be more easily militarized, for the fact that the complete round is more "common" in its general appearance/dimensions, as opposed to the Grendel's more extreme bottleneck.<< Perhaps because 6.8 SPC was designed from the start as a military cartridge, with performance requirements set by 5th Special Forces Group, while 6.5 Grendel was designed as a sporting cartridge, with performance geared towards benchrest shooters and antelope hunters. >>Others have argued considerably against it (6.5 Grendel), suggesting how many failed 6.5mm cartridges have succumbed to the history books as little-remembered examples, but these rounds have nothing in comparison except external diameter to the new bullets.<< My main argument against the Grendel is that its fans almost always fixate on its paper stats, rather than looking at what a combat cartridge needs to actually do. On the other hand, 6.8mm SPC was designed from the start to fix what needed fixing about the 5.56mm round for combat shooting out to 500 or so meters. 6.5mm is a good caliber for military small arms, but 6.5 Grendel is not designed to do that job, something which many don't seem to grasp because they assume anything fired from an AR-15 platform must be a combat round. >>It still all boils down to personal favoritism, and currently the military high-ups are more interested in PGMs, super warplanes, and futuristic tanks. Small arms for the soldier are currently on the backburner in the US: yeah, there's still research and work being done, but it doesn't take priority like other systems...even with all of us supposed to being infantrymen first and foremost.<< Have you spent any time in the US military in the last decade? In 1993 in basic training I had an M16A2 with iron sights
 
Quote    Reply

shek    RE:Next Generation Assault Rifle   12/28/2005 12:55:50 PM
Have you spent any time in the US military in the last decade? In 1993 in basic training I had an M16A2 with iron sights and training based on how to fight enemies from the prone and a fox hole. The contrast with Picatinny rail systems, CCOs, ACOGs, MGOs, IR laser pointers/aimers, tac lights, forward grips, etc (and, equally importantly, the combat marksmanship training, convoy live fire training, etc., to use such things a peak effectiveness) could not be more startling. LOL. I first qualified with a M16A1 with the old school handguards in 1992. I carried a M16A2 with no additional kit except on occasion, a bulky D cell Maglite was 100mph taped to the handguards for MOUT training, as a Rifle PL in 1997 at the tip of the spear in Europe. By the time I took command in 2002, my company had all the above kit, and it was like night and day having the capabilities that all the kit above provided to my company. While the most significant increase in capability was in night marksmanship, it was an all around improvement in combat capabilities. The key is a weapon system is to be able to hit your target in the lethal zone, and the current M4 system does that. As far as the OICW goes and concerns about the durability of the fire control system, the second generation of all the above kit is extremely durable. In 3 1/2 years in my battalion, only one ACOG was ever damaged. I didn't have a single second generation AimPoint or EO Tech HWS go down during my four months in command during OIF. When looking at more complex electronics, we had a 100% fully mission capable rate for iPods and other MP3 players in the harsh environment of Iraq. All it takes is a little extra R&D and testing time, and you can sufficient Joe/Lieutenant proof most anything. :)
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:Next Generation Assault Rifle   12/28/2005 5:22:12 PM
-"...but a lighter bullet means less thump, especially at range..." Yet people continue to support the use of 5.56mm? -"Have you spent any time in the US military in the last decade? In 1993 in basic training I had an M16A2 with iron sights and training based on how to fight enemies from the prone and a fox hole. The contrast with Picatinny rail systems, CCOs, ACOGs, MGOs, IR laser pointers/aimers, tac lights, forward grips, etc (and, equally importantly, the combat marksmanship training, convoy live fire training, etc., to use such things a peak effectiveness) could not be more startling." No, pal. I've only got 14 years in (starting in 1990 with an A1, and didn't get my first A2 until 3 months before we deployed in 2002), all as one of those so-called NG slackers (including 8 months overseas for Enduring Freedom, even if I didn't get a shot off anywhere useful and was primarily performing security duties usually associated with MPs, even though my MOS is electronics maintenance- TOWs and Bradleys mostly, but am secondary MOSQ'ed to work on Kiowa, MLRS, and Paladin components, which I excel at, thank you very much). And my unit's MTOE never did state any necessity/requirement for mounting all the cool new gadgets. Not that our rifles have the P-rail system installed anyway. And IIRC, the military generally frowns on personal modification of issued weapons, not if mission doesn't dictate you need all those fancy new optics enhancers. I've shot just as well off standard iron sights my whole time in.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Next Generation Assault Rifle   12/28/2005 6:30:23 PM
>>-"...but a lighter bullet means less thump, especially at range..." Yet people continue to support the use of 5.56mm?<< Apples and oranges, since the comparison was of 6.5 Grendel to 7.62mm sniper rifle performance. Grendel is a great benchrest shooting round, but it is no replacement for M118LR. At 100 or 200 meters, 5.56mm does the job just fine. >>No, pal. I've only got 14 years in (starting in 1990 with an A1, and didn't get my first A2 until 3 months before we deployed in 2002), all as one of those so-called NG slackers (including 8 months overseas for Enduring Freedom, even if I didn't get a shot off anywhere useful and was primarily performing security duties usually associated with MPs, even though my MOS is electronics maintenance- TOWs and Bradleys mostly, but am secondary MOSQ'ed to work on Kiowa, MLRS, and Paladin components, which I excel at, thank you very much).<< So then you're basing your suggestion that the US military is not spending money on improving small arms for teeth formations on what credentials? I can safely say, personally, that having had occasion to work with those bells and whistles, they make a huge difference. As for being a National Guard slacker, I work with the National Guard all the time and, as I said in a previous thread, there are some great troops in the Guard -- but also some guys who should have never been promoted past E-4 and who should have been run out of the military about a decade before I met them, but instead somehow found their way to squad, platoon or even company first sergeant slots. >>And my unit's MTOE never did state any necessity/requirement for mounting all the cool new gadgets. Not that our rifles have the P-rail system installed anyway. And IIRC, the military generally frowns on personal modification of issued weapons, not if mission doesn't dictate you need all those fancy new optics enhancers. I've shot just as well off standard iron sights my whole time in.<< As for the military frowning, that's command environment, especially if the modifications are not permanent in nature. Still, again, I don't see anything in this observation to demonstrate that funds are not being spent on small arms systems for the troops.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:Next Generation Assault Rifle   12/28/2005 8:40:06 PM
-"Apples and oranges, since the comparison was of 6.5 Grendel to 7.62mm sniper rifle performance. Grendel is a great benchrest shooting round, but it is no replacement for M118LR. At 100 or 200 meters, 5.56mm does the job just fine. " And a P90 PDW in 5.7mm is just fine out to 200m also...and is more compact and lighter to boot. There ARE weapons that outperform 5.56 in CQB (under 200m). And any caliber is good in a bench rest: a rigid, inflexible mounting that allows for minimal dispersion and does little more than gauge the shooter's trigger-pulling ability. I'm only impressed when any bullet/weapon combo is carried and fired by hand and relies on the shooter's skill to maintain shot groups, not fancy mountings. And both the Grendel and Remington rounds were considered as (POSSIBLE) contenders (meaning "unofficially") to replace the 5.56, but if I'm getting something performance-wise on par with 7.62 but is still a tad lighter, I won't complain about it. And I never really suggested to totally replace the 7.62 outright with a different caliber, did I? If I can improve my field performance with a different weapon firing different ammo, I'll gladly give up my M16A2/5.56 rifle. Besides, healthwise, oranges are better for you, anyway. -">>No, pal. I've only got 14 years in (starting in 1990 with an A1, and didn't get my first A2 until 3 months before we deployed in 2002), all as one of those so-called NG slackers (including 8 months overseas for Enduring Freedom, even if I didn't get a shot off anywhere useful and was primarily performing security duties usually associated with MPs, even though my MOS is electronics maintenance- TOWs and Bradleys mostly, but am secondary MOSQ'ed to work on Kiowa, MLRS, and Paladin components, which I excel at, thank you very much).<< So then you're basing your suggestion that the US military is not spending money on improving small arms for teeth formations on what credentials?" You lost me. How did you draw such a conclusion from that section of my post? Do you consider maintenance elements not to be part of the teeth? I'll remember that next time I'm calibrating a Bradley's optics and its TOW electronics. Maybe you should consider it also next time you go to the dentist. Improper maintenance means that you'll lose your bite over time (surely you promote good PMCS?). So sue me then for being an electronics geek in the background and not some Joe Hero out on the frontline actually doing the dirty work. -"As for being a National Guard slacker, I work with the National Guard all the time and, as I said in a previous thread, there are some great troops in the Guard -- but also some guys who should have never been promoted past E-4 and who should have been run out of the military about a decade before I met them, but instead somehow found their way to squad, platoon or even company first sergeant slots. " I'll agree with you there. I've seen a lot of good people screwed over in the name of favoritism keeping some unworthy, unfit SOB in a comfy slot he/she doesn't deserve and didn't actually EARN (some of us call it being "grandfathered in", or suggest buying said individual a new set of knee pads, while the rest of us have to earn and compete on a points scale). But the Guard isn't the only branch guilty of that now, is it? Besides, if I'm working beside a technician who knows how to troubleshoot/repair equipment just as precise as the manufacturer, I'll gladly overlook his weight problem if it means the equipment ain't gonna crap out on the guys depending on it to work in a firefight. -"As for the military frowning, that's command environment, especially if the modifications are not permanent in nature. Still, again, I don't see anything in this observation to demonstrate that funds are not being spent on small arms systems for the troops. " Ahh, but see there, it still boils down to MTOE (or whatever the acronym is in Active Duty now): if your mission suggests you don't need it, you don't get the equipment. End of story. And if you're implying that the maintenance units who keep the Army's teeth in fighting condition are not priority "teeth" elements, why waste money on buying us all the cool gadgets the frontline infantry gets anyway? Maybe that's why the Guard has to contend with older legacy equipment (vehicles mostly, that are expensively difficult to maintain because when we deploy with them the Federal Army has a very limited supply chain supporting them): maybe some Pentagon officials share the same mentality: "the Guard has too many lazy, out-of-shape, disrespectful slackers who aren't grateful enough with what hand-me-downs we give them, and can't maintain themselves enough to Army physical standards, so why should we even waste our precious federal budgets on upgrading them?" Not making excuses here. I'm just basing it off of 14 years' experience, including all the times these Pentagon bigwigs paid our state a vis
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy