Twin snipers via LAPD.
Posted on 03/10/2006 8:55:20 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
H&K has been working on their proposed replacements for the M-16 family. Specifically, the ill-fated XM-8 series that they shopped to The US Army.
More interesting is the latest offerings from FN, including the FN2000 bullpup rifle and their SCAR lineup that's been shopped to the SF community. FN is already lead/sole contractor for the M16A2 and M16A4 and they've proven that they can deliver both quantity and quality. Colt, which is only supplying the M4 carbine, has a way to go before it can catch up on volume capability.
There are plenty of options out there for replacement of the M-16, but the question to really be answered is not WHAT, but WHY?
Small arms cartridge technology has not evolved much in the 40+ years since the inception of the M-16. We go back and forth about larger calibers, salvo projectiles and the like, but we're still dealing with standardized metallic cartridges. Nothing in ballistics is driving an overall need for a revolutionary firearm. The modular M4 is about as evolutionary as we're going to see for some time. Even if you want a new cartridge, like the 6.8mm, the M4 could remain in service.
With the M4 and the recent (10 years) experience with rail systems, we're seeing all of the improvements being based on optics, lights and lasers. THESE are the improvements that are multiplying combat effectiveness for soldiers. The improvements to the Land Warrior system, which reduced the thermal/video camera to something that's actually packable could really push the M4 (or any other modern rifle) to another level.
As a Weapons Specialist in the Military, and a competative shooter in the Military, I loved the M1 and the M14. I was around for the transition from the M14 to the M16. I was sent to Colt Arms M16 Armorer School. What always bothered me was the fact that every rifle coming off the line had to be refurbished. The gas tubes and bolts on the rifle need so much special attention, they carbon up and jammed in those days. Hence the later bolt assist. I still prefer a larger caliber, longer range rifle. When my eyes were better, and I was younger, the M14 was good to 1,000 yards in a match.
Twin snipers via LAPD.
. Be sure not to miss the video of testing the full automatic 12 Ga shotgun!! Awesome and then some!
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/blackwater/?s=2005_videos
I agree on nearly all of what you said, but firefights in Iraq and Afghanistan are consistently within the M4 carbines effective range and most frequently, are within 100 yards. When you consider that soldiers are reporting urban firefights (Iraq) with common engagement ranges of less than 50 yards, the weight, recoil and capacity of the M4 is increasingly useful.
However, the shoot-through ability of the frangible 5.56mm cartridge is questioned against the 7.62mm penetration of softer brick and mortar.
The early problems with the M-16 were because Picatinny Arsenal overrode the design specification for the ammo calling for gun cotton and instead built the ammo using WWII surplus stocks of gun powder. The result was gun powder burns slower and dirtier than gun cotton which clogs the gas tube. Unbelievably, their fix was to change back to gun cotton but also add the forward assist to the upper receiver. Spoke with Stoner about that design change and his response was the worst thing you could do with a misfeed or double feed was to pound on the forward assist as this would compound the problem. Since reverting to gun cotton, there have been no systematic failures to feed. The biggest contributor to failure to feed problems are alwasy worn out magazine springs and followers.
The M-16 is proving AS or MORE accurate than the M-14 in issued condition. DMR rifles are being tweeked and scoped, but the off the shelf M-16 is besting the M-14 out to 600 yards, which is about 6x the average engagement range. What it delivers at the end of those 600yds is open for debate ;)
Didn't know the service issued frangible ammo.
HUH? the M14 I trained with had no such problems in the mid-1960's. The gas system weighs no where near 2.5 pounds either. Accuracy was never a problem, the design has a disguinsined career on the high power shooting match circuit.
The worst complaint of the M14 was that it was useless in the full auto mode cause it was so light it could not be controlled beyond the first couple of shots.
Because we're too f*&^%$ impressed with bazillion dollar airplanes to spend a tenth of that money arming and protecting the guys on the ground who are doing the bleeding and the dying.
Weapons and ammo bump for later.
The Union army may have been slow to adopt the Spencer but since they had the Condederates outnumbered 4 to 1 and the Confederates were using muzzleloaders, the fact that they issued large numbers of Spencers should be a positive not a negative.
The army had adopted the Krag before the Spanish American War. The Mauser was better but not that much better.
During WII we were the only country to issue a semi-auto as general issue.
The M-14 was a fine weapon, maybe not quite as good as the FAL but not noticeably so.
The M-16 was and is a great weapon. It had a few teething problems as all guns do, but most of these were not the fault of the gun. Even today the problems are not with the basic gun but the configurations.
Not designed as frangible, like civilian rounds, but the 5.56mm carries a relatively thin jacket. It's ability to fragment upon entry into tissue makes up it's ability to penetrate. You will never recover a 55gr M193 projectile that's even 50% of its original weight.
When I say "frangible", I mean in comparison to 7.62mm and other offerings ;)
We always had everything we needed and in good order.
No complaints from me.
We're using it because it does the job better than anything else.
We've tried several times to replace it, and the replacements have failed in direct comparison.
If you don't like ARs, fine, but don't try to sell the line of BS that there's some vastly superior alternative out there.
The DMR was required as a scout-sniper support weapon. A rifle with a semi-automatic feed that could maintain one minute of angle accuracy. The gas system does indeed weigh 2.5 plbs. To accuratize the rifle armorers must shim the gas system to create the illusion of a free floating barrel to achieve 1 MOA. The problem comes when the rifle is bounced or jarred during normal operations. We used to compete at Camp Perry with M14s and required one armorer to two M14s to keep them in 1 MOA condition. While this won us a lot of trophies, as a combat sniper rifle it is a no go.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.