Good riddance M-16

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

PowerPointRanger Moot point & New Direction 12/22/2005 4:02:57 PM

Actually, the whole subjects of this thread, the M-16 being replaced, is a moot point now that the XM-8 was cancelled. link Let's change the spin of things just a bit. If you could create the ideal assault rifle for the US military, what would it be like? Would you continue using 5.56mm ammo or go larger? Continue to use high-powered ammo or go low-powered? Spring-loaded or gas-operated? Since this is theoretical, feel free to wild... Is there anything out there close to what you wanted?

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:Moot point & New Direction 12/22/2005 5:05:27 PM

>>If you could create the ideal assault rifle for the US military, what would it be like? Would you continue using 5.56mm ammo or go larger? Continue to use high-powered ammo or go low-powered? Spring-loaded or gas-operated? Since this is theoretical, feel free to wild... Is there anything out there close to what you wanted? << Current technology -- HK M416 or FN SCAR-L would get my vote for off the shelf systems that are pretty much ready to go (though as an ideal I might prefer switching over to 6.8x43mm Rem SPC to improve lethality out past usual assault rifle ranges), coupled with an ACOG and EOTech. And a pistol as secondary, preferably the new HK 45 which is, hopefully, going to replace the Beretta sooner rather than later (I don't have a problem with the 9x19mm round, but the Beretta is a POS). Near future technology? OICW with bulk and weight suitably reduced, length of pull reworked into something that looks more user friendly, and the rifle component issued with some sort of attachable stock for CQB situations where you don't need the airbursting grenade launcher capability but do need a shoulder-fired long gun.

Quote Reply

shek RE:Moot point & New Direction 12/22/2005 10:41:37 PM

Perhaps you will recall that widely circulated news story last summer of the soldier who was video-taped shooting an unarmed wounded soldier. Although there was a great deal of controversy over it, the military declined to take any action against the soldier, who clearly thought the individual was moving, and had recently been wounded himself by a wounded enemy who had been playing dead. This was a pretty good example. Exactly. The video is the most favorable piece of evidence in support of the soldier. It clearly shows that he made a totally conscious decision that the wounded insurgent posed a threat. If it had been a cold, calculated, and reflexive decision to murder the insurgent, then he would have fired at all the insurgents as quickly as possible as soon as he entered the mosque ? he didn?t. As for our auto-fire discussion, 100-round drums are available for the M-16. The issue isn?t magazine capacity, although I?ve heard that the 100 round drums suck, but rather ammunition carried. Basic load is still 210 rounds. More rounds can be carried, but you?re competing with body armor, mission essential equipment, and water. At the ammunition basic load of 210 rounds, with semi-automatic fire, you have 210 separate engagements, with three round burst, you have 70 potential engagements, and with full auto and bursts of 5-10 rounds, you have 21-42 potential engagements until you are out of ammunition. Shek, I don't consider this a false-dichotomy at all. Here?s the false dichotomy that you have been arguing for throughout the thread. It might not have been crystal clear in the last post, but it had been in previous posts.

Again, if you don't feel like automatic weapons have a place on the battlefield, then give up your M-249's. You sincerely can't argue you don't need auto-fire and then build a squad around one.

Here?s the definition of false dichotomy:

link dichotomy - The logical fallacy of false dilemma, also known as fallacy of the excluded middle, false dichotomy, either/or dilemma or bifurcation, is to set up two alternative points of view as if they were the only options, when they are not.

Your argument apparently leaves a choice of no automatic weapons in a rifle platoon or, if you want SAWs, then you must also have full auto for your M16. Clearly, that is a false choice as it omits other possible options. You assume that all the pieces will be in place and function properly. In the real world, this is often the exception, rather than the rule. Maybe your SAW-gunner gets wounded, isolated, pinned down, out of position, whatever...a little redundancy would certainly go a long way. Okay, you can call in a JDAM. How long will that take, two minutes? Suppose you don't have two minutes? It takes one second to switch the selector to full-auto. My point of bringing up the Battle of Mogadishu was to illustrate the point that you don't always have what you need, when you need it. As they say, no plan ever survived first contact. You?re correct, no plan survives contact. However, the scenario you?ve just painted means you have: 1) no mutual support beyond the fire team level 2) no communications to call for fire from your organic company mortars, the artillery supporting your battalion/brigade, or the emergency or strip alert CAS 3) no warning of the Mongolian horde that escaped detection from the UAV that is organic to your company, the UAV that is organic to your battalion, the UAV that is organic to the brigade, the UAVs and other sensor platforms that are organic to the theater, and other national assets, meaning that your isolated fire team is now in danger of being completely overrun Next, I gave you two counterarguments for Mogadishu, neither of which you have addressed. 1) Shughart and Gordon were killed not because they were overrun with loads of Somalis, but because they were black on ammo. Had they used full auto, they would have run out of ammo quicker and thus, been killed quicker. 2) The Rangers were not overrun, and giving them full auto would have led to faster ammo consumption and a greater possibility of being overrun due to an increased risk of running out of ammo. Mogadishu reinforces that semi-automatic with three round burst is a fully appropriate and desirable solution for the modern battlefield for the US military. A full-auto option on an M-16 is a cheap and easy way to give a soldier options. You could still train & require those soldiers to fire single aimed shots and/or train them about which situations are appropriate for auto-fire. Not sure what units you have been in, but I never had the number of bullets I wanted in order to train my company, and I went many rounds above and beyond the STRAC requirements. General Schoomaker increased the STRAC requirements, which is great, but there still isn?t a single round in the STRAC dedicated to even three round burst. Now you want to introduce full auto? Besides increased ammunition wastage, what are the marginal results of going from three round bursts to thirty round bursts? Telling soldiers when and when not to use full auto fire isn?t training in my book. You need to put rounds down range so that you learn how to make those rounds count. Otherwise, it?s just wasted rounds. Simply put, auto-fire is a tool. Any tool can be useful or not depending on how it is used. Okay, you don't an E-1 with autofire? Fine, don't give him auto-fire. What about your E-4 who knows what's what? Like I said, it's an option, not a mandate. Spec ops unit need full auto because they don?t have the ability to also have SAWs or M240Bs or other automatic weapons with them for missions. They need an ability to put lots of lead down range in order to break contact. However, the key here is they also get the bullets and range time so that they can properly drill this and make the rounds fired on full auto count. Conventional units don?t get the ammunition or the time to train full auto, not to mention the fact that over 20% of the weapons at the platoon level are already fully automatic. In the end, it?s obvious that we will just continue to argue circles over the topic, so I agree with your proposal to stop debating the full auto issue.

Quote Reply

Carl S RE:Moot point & New Direction 12/23/2005 4:26:22 PM

If you could create the ideal assault rifle for the US military, what would it be like? I rather favor the ten or twelve gauge shotgun. Opps, thats not a rifle. Sorry.

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:Moot point & New Direction 12/23/2005 9:36:36 PM

Actually, Carl, a semi-auto .410 with 00 buckshot (double-aught) would be a hell of a room-clearing/CQB gun. Wonder if anyone ever thought of just such an upper for the "common" M16 lower receiver assembly...? Shucks, even .410 slugs would have very favorable performance: depending on bullet composition and propellant load, effectively you'd have a carbine equivalent approaching the power of a .44magnum handgun (go ahead, punk, if you feel lucky). I seriously doubt there are very many people in the battle area that would still remain standing in fighting composure after taking a round center-mass from that (and it wouldn't quite take up as much volume/weight/recoil as a .50 Beowulf)... But a 10 gauge? DAMN! Why not go all out and bring back the .58 Minie ball? Those things were lethal against horses out to 600 yards (cavalry: Civil War records indicate the round could take out both the rider and his mount, so close quarters against people should be no problem...providing you can manufacture them as cartridge ammo for a self-loading rifle...but they'd take up as much room as a 12 gauge 3" round!). Some time ago (within the past couple years), I read that the USCG was evaluating an upper receiver in .499 Leitner Weiss (sp?) for its boarding parties and small patrol craft personnel, but I haven't really looked into it lately.

Quote Reply

doggtag Yeah, this thing 12/23/2005 9:40:37 PM

Correction, it's Leitner-Wise. link

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:Yeah, this thing 12/23/2005 9:42:17 PM

Sorry about that. Here's the link on the .499: link

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:Moot point & New Direction 12/23/2005 11:29:47 PM

>>Some time ago (within the past couple years), I read that the USCG was evaluating an upper receiver in .499 Leitner Weiss (sp?) for its boarding parties and small patrol craft personnel, but I haven't really looked into it lately.<< I've seen claims in print that USCG has trialled and/or procured both the Leitner-Wise 499 and the Alexander Arms Beowulf .50 cal (though I don't think Alexander Arms mentions this claim on their website, Leitner-Wise does). It may be that they have taken a look at both weapons, or it just may be poor fact checking by writers -- most people, even gun afficianados would be hard pressed to tell one weapon or round from the other at about five feet. The rounds themselves are almost identical in appearance, with the Leitner-Wise round being a couple of millimeters longer in terms of case and overall length, with ballistics being pretty much identical as well.

Quote Reply

PowerPointRanger Shrek: Last Word on Auto 12/25/2005 9:34:28 PM

Shrek, I'm going to go ahead and give you the last word on this debate, although I don't concede the point. We have been arguing in circles and I think we have each adequately stated our arguments in full. As for the new argument, what would your ideal assault weapon look like?

Quote Reply

shek RE:Shrek: Last Word on Auto 12/25/2005 10:16:22 PM

PPT Ranger, As I stated earlier, I'm not too smart beyond what is issued to me in terms of weapons - my focus was on getting the max out of what we had and pursuing kit on the margins of the major end items (getting undergun lights, etc.). I was happy with the performance of my kitted out M4 and was happy that my squad designated marksmen had M14s to perform that role. Beyond that, I'll leave it to the gun afficiandos to talk specs and potential replacements for the M4/M16.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:Shrek: Last Word on Auto 12/26/2005 11:58:24 AM

>>As I stated earlier, I'm not too smart beyond what is issued to me in terms of weapons - my focus was on getting the max out of what we had and pursuing kit on the margins of the major end items (getting undergun lights, etc.). I was happy with the performance of my kitted out M4 and was happy that my squad designated marksmen had M14s to perform that role. Beyond that, I'll leave it to the gun afficiandos to talk specs and potential replacements for the M4/M16. << The existing kit works very well, and no current replacement offers the 100% improvement in capabilities that the US Army specified in its ACR competition from the 1980s. Talk about changing bullets (while potentially very interesting), changing weapons systems, etc., is pretty close to splitting hairs until OICW-type technology starts to come into service. Supposedly those weapons offer a 500% improvement over existing technologies, which, even if they fail to live up to such and instead go, say, 3-400% improvement, should be revolutionary. If and when they ever get into service.

Quote Reply

doggtag OICW, follow-ons, etc 12/26/2005 12:34:14 PM

Problem I see we run into here: considering the "battlefield abuse" an infantry weapon goes through during its lifetime: will the built-in fire control comuter be survivable enough to withstand all the extremes the infantryman faces? Will I require 2 or 3 different firing solution computing devices, each for their own extremes of frigid arctic environment, hot desert with powdery sand, or extra sealing for high-humidity tropical areas. Sounds like one weapon could get overly expensive. I wohn't get too in depth on the fuzed airburst round technology, but won't the rounds be far heavier, far more expensive, and less be carried than standard bullets? Seeing all the prior arguments/debates, I don't now seriously think that claiming airburst ammo offers an x-hundred% increase in lethality will really be all that much more beneficial on the battlefield: not if the grunt only gets to carry 1-4-1/6 the ammunition. I think the best future infantryman's weapon would be something designed to be much more reliable & durable, yet is not over-encumbered with too many gizmos, bells, and electronic whistles that it becomes a field stripping maintenance nightmare to the troops using it.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:OICW, follow-ons, etc 12/26/2005 1:15:03 PM

>>Problem I see we run into here: considering the "battlefield abuse" an infantry weapon goes through during its lifetime: will the built-in fire control comuter be survivable enough to withstand all the extremes the infantryman faces? Will I require 2 or 3 different firing solution computing devices, each for their own extremes of frigid arctic environment, hot desert with powdery sand, or extra sealing for high-humidity tropical areas. Sounds like one weapon could get overly expensive.<< The prototype OICW fire control components include a "iron sights" capability for firing point-detonating grenades and 5.56mm rounds. That said, night vision gear, Pluggers and other GPS equipment, thermal weapons sights, and such all seem to take their share of thumping but mostly keep working. They can be broken, and I'm certain that OICW fire control/sensor components will be breakable as well, but provided they can attain a reasonable degree of reliability for the operating environment, this does not seem like a good reason to avoid this sort of technology. Current things in the inventory like Aimpoints and ACOGs, etc., represent an increase in durability and/or reliability over historical analogs and, while they can be broken, still provide an order of magniture superior performance to basic iron sights. As for cost, the individual weapon system will likely be quite expensive, which would be part of the reason why fielding plans for OICW have always focused on putting them into the hands of shooters (infantry, special operations, etc.) while support units or those needing a PDW more than an offensive weapon would continue with the assault rifle backed up by some number of 40mm GLs, etc. >>I wohn't get too in depth on the fuzed airburst round technology, but won't the rounds be far heavier, far more expensive, and less be carried than standard bullets?<< Round for round, obviously a 5.56mm round or 7.62mm is lighter than a smart grenade. But, conventional small arms ammunition does not have a top attack capability for engaging targets under cover. Likewise, smart grenades extend (at least as advertised) the individual infantryman's engagement range out to 1000 meters, which 5.56mm or even 7.62x51mm can't do except in specialized sniper weapons and, even then, 5.56mm is unlikely to score a hit and 7.62mm is pretty marginal as well. And, of course, a smart grenade may generate more than on casualty per round, which small arms ammunition cannot manage except in the statistically irrelevant odd circumstance. >>Seeing all the prior arguments/debates, I don't now seriously think that claiming airburst ammo offers an x-hundred% increase in lethality will really be all that much more beneficial on the battlefield: not if the grunt only gets to carry 1-4-1/6 the ammunition.<< Beyond CQB ranges, as the probability of a hit drops dramatically for a conventional rifle, they will likely be revolutionary. Like an M203 round, the OICW projectile only has to get close, not score a solid hit on a sub-6 MOA target at 400-1000 meters, which should prove superior both in terms of current weapons and the abilities of current shooters. >>I think the best future infantryman's weapon would be something designed to be much more reliable & durable, yet is not over-encumbered with too many gizmos, bells, and electronic whistles that it becomes a field stripping maintenance nightmare to the troops using it.<< Which is the alternative the US Army, the Australians, the French, the British, etc have all rejected in favor of bells and whistles. Bells and whistles provide gross overmatch against savages fighting with AK-47s, and I'm pretty partial to such as a consequence. Bells and whistles have revolutionized the way we presently fight war (i.e. night vision) and will continue to do so. Veering away from the embrace of technology and incorporation of it into our weapons and how we fight is an absolute error.

Quote Reply

PowerPointRanger Next Generation Assault Rifle 12/27/2005 11:18:11 PM

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.) Personally, I'd like to see a next-generation assault rifle with a larger bullet, but I'd keep it a high velocity round.

Quote Reply

longrifle RE:Next Generation Assault Rifle 12/28/2005 12:09:05 AM

I wish they would forget ideas of making everyone a 20mm grenadier and go with rifle grenades instead; they would allow for a rifle in a nicer handling package. Newer models are shoot through or bullet trap, eliminating using a blank cartridge for firing as in WWII era rifle grenades. I've heard some of them can be thrown like stick grenades also, I haven't confirmed that though. Go for an all around intermediate round, bigger than 5.56, smaller than 7.62. The 6.8 sounds interesting, but I admit I haven't studied it much. If the round is the best choice for the streets of Fallujia it won't be the best choice for the mountains of Afghanistan and vice versa. Splitting the difference for infantry makes the most sense to me, although different rounds and interchangable upper recievers might be best for SF. Issue everyone a pistol and teach transition drills for CQB; every SWAT team in the country does, so does DELTA. It shouldn't be beyond infantry units. These ideas aren't perfect, neither is anything else.

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

	News As History - November 21, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us