Results 1 to 10 of 112
-
February 3rd, 2011, 05:52 PM #1Grand Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
-
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia County) - Posts
- 1,337
- Rep Power
- 16766
Army looking for M4/M16 replacement
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...47-503544.html
In a written statement, the Army said it hopes to come up with a weapon with "greater degrees of accuracy, reliability, durability and maintainability."
Manufacturers will submit designs and go through competitive testing before the final selection is made. New rifles won't go out to soldiers on the front lines for at least three years.
That article also implied that a fire fight in Afghanistan where multiple US soldiers were killed demonstrated numerous reliability problems with the M4 in the dry/dusty conditions leading to their deaths.
Seems to me, there's already a proven replacement out there, the AK platform. Cheaper and more reliable. Why not? Just because it's the weapon of "the enemy"?
-
February 3rd, 2011, 05:55 PM #2
Re: Army looking for M4/M16 replacement
Last edited by 7998; February 3rd, 2011 at 05:57 PM.
We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.-Benjamin Franklin
-
February 3rd, 2011, 06:29 PM #3Super Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
-
in the city
- Posts
- 532
- Rep Power
- 461882
Re: Army looking for M4/M16 replacement
i just read an article in the march issue of guns and ammo that says the army will be upgrading all 500,000 of there
m4s over the next 4 to 5 years. the upgrades will make them a m4a1 with a heavy barrel, ambi saftey, and full auto instead of the three round burst.
-
February 3rd, 2011, 07:33 PM #4
Re: Army looking for M4/M16 replacement
The external configuration and ergonomics of the M16 family isn't bad. I have never appreciated the idea of direct impingement for the op system though, since it dumps the gas into the breech and chamber. I also dislike some of the smaller parts.
So lets keep the good parts and use an operating rod system to keep the carbon and junk out the chamber area. Go back to a 20" heavy barrel to improve the muzzle velocity and adopt a caliber that will have more range. Something around a 7mm at about 3000 fps with a 140 to 160 gr bullet.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities".
-
February 3rd, 2011, 07:39 PM #5Banned
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
-
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia County) - Posts
- 91
- Rep Power
- 0
-
February 3rd, 2011, 08:01 PM #6Super Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
-
Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
(Allegheny County) - Posts
- 597
- Rep Power
- 942215
Re: Army looking for M4/M16 replacement
The Garand won us a World War...why not use that? 30-06>.223 IMO.
If they want more accuracy then that with more rounds and full auto options then go to the M14.
Problem SOLVED.Dont Forget To Give Me Some Good Rep! Thanks!
-
February 3rd, 2011, 09:13 PM #7Grand Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Location
-
back to Port Charlotte,
Florida
- Age
- 60
- Posts
- 5,483
- Rep Power
- 3627622
Re: Army looking for M4/M16 replacement
Last edited by harold63; February 3rd, 2011 at 09:19 PM.
-
February 3rd, 2011, 09:42 PM #8
Re: Army looking for M4/M16 replacement
I heard the latest thing is some $30,000 gun that shoots around corners.
-
February 3rd, 2011, 09:50 PM #9Grand Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
-
Ligonier,
Pennsylvania
(Westmoreland County) - Posts
- 1,579
- Rep Power
- 21474855
Re: Army looking for M4/M16 replacement
Garand: Great rifle, but obsolete.
M14: Product improved Garand. Again, great rifle and still a very viable weapons system. However, as with all standard battle rifles in 7.62 NATO, they are very unwieldly in full-auto mode. Not a practial full auto rifle for the individual infantryman. Same goes for the FAL and the HK G3. On the other hand, those rifles would be a fine general service rifle used in semi-only.
It would seem the 20 inch full-length M-16A4 is good platform. Just do away with the 3Rd. burst setting in favor of full-auto. IMHO it was a mistake to adopt that second-rate solution to a bad training program in the first place.
As for the M-4, let's not throw them on the scrap heap quite yet. No rifle is perfect so let's look at the ratio of malfuntion to the number in service before we scrap a viable weapons system. I know guys who are quite happy with them.
-
February 3rd, 2011, 10:15 PM #10
Re: Army looking for M4/M16 replacement
Our soldiers are supposed to be well trained, and we spend alot of damned money on each individual soldier. Therefore a more sophisticated weapon should be used to its fulles capabilities. An AK47 was designed for shit heads and mud butts with low to no IQ.
AK's are great weapons, but over the next few years we're going to see huge advancements in small arms. 10 years from now AK operators aren't going to stand a snow balls chance in hell compared to what we are starting to roll out as we type.
Similar Threads
-
S/W 686 replacement
By Steve from Philly in forum PistolsReplies: 7Last Post: January 18th, 2011, 08:08 AM -
m&p replacement barrel
By wheelman53 in forum PistolsReplies: 6Last Post: August 18th, 2010, 11:01 PM -
Army National Guard vs. Army Reserves
By Kb! Bob in forum GeneralReplies: 31Last Post: September 21st, 2009, 10:47 PM -
Replacement for the M4?
By pandemic in forum GeneralReplies: 15Last Post: February 8th, 2009, 08:18 PM -
Replacement registration?
By mikewvu in forum GeneralReplies: 3Last Post: January 25th, 2009, 09:06 PM
Bookmarks