Posted on 05/20/2017 9:07:10 AM PDT by Elderberry
The United State Army made waves a couple months ago when they finally chose the Sig Sauer P320 as a replacement for the long-serving Beretta M9. Many have mused at why the military chose the Sig over the other entrants. If the M9 is out, could the M16 and M4 be next? According to recent reports, the famed Eugene Stoner rifle could be going the way of the M14, M1 Garand, and 1903 Springfield.
The M16 was adopted into service in 1964 after extensive testing. The army was searching for a smaller projectile and lighter gun that could easily be fired in semi-automatic and fully automatic modes. They found that in the M16. Of course, the original adaption of the Armalite Rifle had some issues, but over the years the M16 adapted to meet the needs and use modern materials. These adaptions led to the M16A1, A2, A3 A4 and then the M4 and M4A1, all of which have been the selected service rifle of the U.S. Military at one time or another.
Those days may soon be gone. A recent report from the Army Times broke the news that the military is looking to replace the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge, and thus, the AR platform. The report details how the military is looking for a larger caliber bullet, something in the 6.5mm to 7mm range, that can reach out further with more lethality than the light .22 caliber 5.56mm.
Reports from Afghanistan and Iraq have shown that at least half of the engagement distances are over 300 meters, where the 5.56mm can lose lethality, especially against armored combatants. The Army still wants something light, so not back up to the 7.62mm class, but something with better ballistics than the .223 Remington. (Perhaps the 6.5 Creedmoor?) As most of our enemies are shooting 7.62mm-based firearms such as former Soviet or Iraqi AKs, SKSs, Druganovs, and PKMs, they actually have a deadlier reach than our troops’.
Being outmatched on the battlefield is not the American way, and in order to keep our warfighters safe, it may be time to hang up the Stoner-designed rifles. With modern technology, materials, and ballistics, perhaps the next generation of service rifles will capture the hearts of Americans like the M16 did. And hopefully we’ll see an influx of surplus .223 Remington/5.56mm NATO ammunition hit the market!
The Army’s search for a new round and rifle combination has been going on since 2014 but is expected to wrap up in the next few months. Eventually, parts of the military’s study will be made available to civilians, though much of it may stay classified. We’ll just have to wait until we find out more!
That would be a good pick, as well.
Projectile weapons are so last century.
Thanks for the test results. 06 is still an excellent cartridge.
The M2 is not a battlefield rifle, carried by infantry.
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.
—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-—
They were using Martini-Henrys at Rorke’s Drift.
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.
Thanks
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.
Mr. niteowl77
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.
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.