First the M9, Now the M16? Army Seeks Replacement for AR

blog.defenderoutdoors.com ^ | 5/12/2017 | Scott Walker

[Elderberry]

That would be a good pick, as well.

[CodeToad]

Projectile weapons are so last century.

[Texas Fossil]

Thanks for the test results. 06 is still an excellent cartridge.

[Squantos]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.260_Remington

Something to read when ya get time.....

[Erik Latranyi]

Do you feel the same way about heavy machine guns? Because Ma Deuce is almost 100 years old.

The M2 is not a battlefield rifle, carried by infantry.

[Erik Latranyi]

The Stoner design has earned its stripes the hard way. I would be hesitant to scrap it just because the design is old. The design works very well despite its age. There is always room for improvement of course. The incorporation of an adjustable gas bleed off valve would be useful for example. and, not to sound like a fanatic, but chambering it in 6.5 Creedmoor would be a huge improvement too.

You made the case for replacing it in your own post.

The successor does not have to be revolutionary, it can be evolutionary or retain many of the design-elements that make the Stoner design robust.

However, there are many newer designs out there that are far, far more superior for a battlefield rifle.

[rellimpank]

—saw article on that subject in one of the gun magazines some years ago-—if the 6m/m Lee-Navy had had the powder and case capacity (smaller) allowed by better powder, it would likely still be the standard military caliber world wide-—

[GenXteacher]

They were using Martini-Henrys at Rorke’s Drift.

[GenXteacher]

Just move up to 7.62 NATO. That saves the ammunition production headaches of starting up a new caliber and keeps any ammo reserves viable.

[Texas Fossil]

Thanks

[RC one]

You made the case for replacing it in your own post

No, I made the case for not replacing it simply because it is old. I think it's still a useful and proven design that has evolved into its present form over the course of decades of warfare and there's something to be said for that. I also think the reliability and lethality issues are overstated.

I carried an M16A2 around for 8 years as an infantry soldier and have owned numerous AR15s and Ar10s as a civilian. I reload for these rifles regularly and am very familiar with the subject of external ballistics. I think I am at least a little bit qualified to judge the weapon.

My primary concern is the trend towards shorter barrels/M4s. The 5.56mm needs all the velocity it can muster to be effective. I also have concerns about the new M855A1 ammo. It seems like it isn't quite what was promised. I really don't have the time to dive into this topic as much as I would like to right now as I'm heading off to work.

[niteowl77]

I just finished reading Popenker and Williams' book "Assault Rifle," and they also mention the 6mm Lee Navy as being ahead of its time. The propellant technology and bullet designs were just not mature enough to keep the major powers from going to the .30 through 7.92 calibers even though many of the theorists of the time said that somewhere from 6-7mm was the answer.

Mr. niteowl77

[1L]

The M4 5.56 platform for the military isn’t going anywhere. They MAY move to a different round, a slightly different rifle style, and probably new suppliers for a standard issue battlefield rifle, but the 5.56 AR will survive if only in the shorter barrel rifle outfits. There isn’t much better than a 10.5” H&K 416 for short range (close quarters) clearing. It is also the perfect home defense weapon IF you are trained with the rifle. If Trump and co. would simply repeal the NFA, we could all have one without govt. interference.