Army Possibly Phasing Out M-16

[Jonneh]

Originally posted by Jeffy-CanCon
The G11 is cool, Jonneh, but SFAIK it is not in production, and probably never will be. The Germans found it to be expensive and impractical. I heard this from a friend who was working as a firearms identification tech with the RCMP.

Assuming we can manufacture enough ammo fast enough, surely the costs would drop over the long term because you wouldn't need all that brass. Apparently the reason the G11 was designed the way it is is so it can get more lead in the air hopefully resulting in a greater hit probability. The lack of brass round the caseless shells meant that a soldier could carry round about 12 mags of 50 rounds, rather than the current 6*20 (I think) with the m16. Maybe I'm just a sucker for new designs and technology, but I think taking up the G11 would make you the coolest army ever.

[Collegeboy]

Why doesn't the US adopt the idea of the barrel being in the stock, I do not know the name of it? But it allows you to have a full length barrel in a smaller package, like the AUG. What are the disadvantages to such a design?

[Steelrat]

Its called a "bullpup" configuration. So far the bullpup weapons have not been huge successes. The British rifle, L80/84, is pretty close to a total failure, as it breaks down a lot. The FAMAS isnt that hot either. I thought the AUG was okay, but Army seemed to think otherwise.

The only true advantage of a bullpup is shorter length. I am interested in the new FN stuff, though im not sure how well they shoot.

[Army]

CB, realize there is 55,000psi in the chamber at firing, nearly DOUBLE that of a hand grenade. People and soldiers are very leary of that much power happening so close to their faces.

Bullpups are indeed a very logical solution to weapon length, but they become more unweildy due to more weight to the rear, throwing balance off considerably. This results in more muzzle movement during recoil, which translates into less shooter accuracy and slower effective fire.

Steelrat, Australia became quickly disappointed in their AUG's, after a 60% failure rate in its first two years of deployment. They have since gone to a licensed version of the M16A2. No major force has adopted it....other than Austria.

Nomad, the Diemaco is nothing more spectacular than a licensed M16 variant.

[-J�ker-]

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast
I'd like to handle an F2000. (http://www.fnhusa.com/contents/tw_f2000.htm) Plus, that last accessory listed (http://www.fnhusa.com/contents/ll_303.htm

f2000 isnt that the gun from splinter cell?

[WicKeD_WaYz]

who needs guns?

give them all brass knuckles

[davidb]

Good points on the Bullpup design, and in general, Army. I didn't give much thought to the idea of the explosion going on near your face, although the thought of having the ejection port so close to your EAR would bother me.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by davidb
I didn't give much thought to the idea of the explosion going on near your face, although the thought of having the ejection port so close to your EAR would bother me.

Well, I've had an Uzi jam a round in the barrel and the whole charge blew out in front of my face. A few rounds with predictable recoil, then POW. Bloody gun jumps sideways when I pulled the trigger.

With it up against my shoulder, I got a lot of stuff blown on my face and had a horrible taste in my mouth.

Despite that, I think I wouldn't be too concerned about the bullpup designs. The ejection port is probably better placed than many guns/rifles that you'd shoulder to fire.

[dansim]

Originally posted by Jonneh
that a soldier could carry round about 12 mags of 50 rounds, rather than the current 6*20 (I think) with the m16.

close , its actually 7 mags(six in pouches) in in the gun at 30rnds, most people will bring more though

[Jeffy-CanCon]

The Diemaco C7a1 uses a heavier barrel than the M16A2, a modified gas system and comes standard with a 3.5x optical sight. It also has full-auto rather than a 3-rd burst. The troops seem quite happy with it. The Dutch Army is buying some for their SpecForces, I think.

Army - I had heard something bad about the AUG from my friend, that the Aussies were disappointed with it. He has one, and it shoots nice, but I guess it's just not a good field-use weapon.

I thought the SS109 was supposed to have similar penetration to the 7.62, or am I getting it confused with the older M93 round?

[Steelrat]

I thought the whole point of the ss109 was they wanted it to wound, rather than kill, as a wounded soldier is alarger drain on enemy resources than a dead one.

[LudavicoSoldier]

Originally posted by logamus
the g36 would be a great replacement, except its not made here. if h&k were to allow another company in the us to manufacture them it might be a viable choice. you have to remember our security and that if we are dependant on a forign country to supply us with the tools to wage war, that could put us in a tight spot. germany wasnt much of a supporter of the iraq war, just imagine if they decided to ban the shipping of weapons until we had un approval or somesuch. whatever the replacement is, it has to be built here. but the g36 is an outstanding rifle.

Funny, HK just broke ground on their new US plant in Columbus, Georgia.

[oldsoldier]

Originally posted by banzaimf
My biggest problem with the current M-16/m-4 and other variants it the total lack of knockdown power. During the Cold War, in a battle with another army, there was relevance to a wounding round. Current combat roles seem to suggest that a round with signifigant stopping power would be prefferable. I had heard an interesting anectdote from a retired general being interviewed on THC. He commented that he'd heard stories coming out of Afghanistan, in which, during the winter fighting, Taliban forces were taking multiple rounds center mass and not going down. Once they were able to get to the taliban forces, they were finding rounds stopped in one of the many layers of jackets and sweaters that are required to keep warm on Afghani mountains.

I find this VERY hard to believe, as the muzzle velocity of a 5.56 round travels fast enough to penetrate clothing, plus, it is steel core. So, I am gonna zonk that rumor.
The bullpup design was, in theory, great, as it keeps the same barrel length, but puts the action behind the magazine. Army pointed it out...who wants a controlled explosion happening right next to their head? I have had friends here in my unit work with the Brits, they all said that their rifles are junk. They are too complex, and have a tendency to malfunction.
The army is always trying to come up with new and better weapons. however, you gotta remember this; when it comes to congress approving money, it goes to the high priced items first; planes and bombs. THEN it trickles down to personal weapons. And, again, they go cheap, and effective. I, personally, think we have at least another 5-10 years of the M16 and its variants.

[Sir_Brass]

Agreed. It'll take AT LEAST that long for all our forces worldwide to phase out the m16 and m4 and start using a new rifle. This includes weapons training and maintenance for all soldiers since they need to know how their guns inside and out, and you usually learn your gun during basic. So all soldiers will have to undergo that portion of training again.

[p8ntball1016]

i would say 2-5 years. the xm8 is to go into production by 2005. but then comes beuracracy(i cant spell)and the obvious brigade of lobbyists sent by colt.