Replies

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.

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.