Should the M16 be replaced?

[extern]

7.62x39 is thing of the past and will never replace anything in RuA. It will remain in service for long time of course - but RuA will not buy new AR's for that.

After two chechen wars here the 9x39mm 17 g. SP-5 (SP-6) subsonic round ruleth! I read only good responces about such weapons (VSS, AS, VSK-94, 9A91, OTs-14 'Groza') using in overbuilt areas.
1) low recochette from the walls
2) low acoustics
3) exellent penetrability

 

[Chrom]

After two chechen wars here the 9x39mm 17 g. SP-5 (SP-6) subsonic round ruleth! I read only good responces about such weapons (VSS, AS, VSK-94, 9A91, OTs-14 'Groza') using in overbuilt areas.
1) low recochette from the walls
2) low acoustics
3) exellent penetrability

It is special forces weapon. In that segment will can see just about anything. Including 0.50 cal rifles - and i dont hear any plans about transfering all RuA infantry to 0.50 cal...

 

[extern]

It is special forces weapon. In that segment will can see just about anything. Including 0.50 cal rifles - and i dont hear any plans about transfering all RuA infantry to 0.50 cal...

I think, it's gonna be flexible: well depended, where the unit fights. To note, 2/3 of RuA was already professional, and it's little problem to learn more than one individual weapon. If we speek about most often contemporal combats, they can happen in city area or on open area as well, while the insurgency and terrorists - are the most often target. Also, it's rare happen when one needs fire from the automatic gun on distans more then 400 m (the effective range of subsonic SP-5/6). If it's happen, snipers do the job, doesnt they.

So in most circumstanses the effective range of 5.56 NATO and 5.45x39 is exessive. Also the effectiveness of 5.56 as well as 5.45 on those distance >400m against body armor is close to zero. Then the Russian 9x39mm can do all the job of 5.56/5.45 and do it even better. Thus I expect great revolution in infantry weapon after Iraq/Afghanistan, like after AK-47 invention or 5.56 coming. Old calibers just cant satisfy the main players. I expect more inclination in Russia and its proxies towards 9x39, which has proved itself as exellent. Of course this Tungsten carbid cor round much more expensive that any 5.56 NATO, and high tech. equipement is needed for its manufacturing, but the soldier's life is still more valuable. It's even good, while an expensive weapon is less accesseble for terrorists.

I also expect recoil-balanced systems for 9x39mm will appear, so the accuratness of fire will not fall behind 5.56mm.

I still dont see any revolutionary round on the West like 9x39 apropos. The turning to M-14 with 7.62 NATO is certainly regress, while its round is too powerfull for accurate automatic fire. Even the old good Russian 7.62x39 1943y is better for such purpose. So, may be the turn for completely new 6.xx mm expected indeed...

 

[Chrom]

I think, it's gonna be flexible: well depended, where the unit fights. To note, 2/3 of RuA was already professional, and it's little problem to learn more than one individual weapon. If we speek about most often contemporal combats, they can happen in city area or on open area as well, while the insurgency and terrorists - are the most often target. Also, it's rare happen when one needs fire from the automatic gun on distans more then 400 m (the effective range of subsonic SP-5/6). If it's happen, snipers do the job, doesnt they.

So in most circumstanses the effective range of 5.56 NATO and 5.45x39 is exessive. Also the effectiveness of 5.56 as well as 5.45 on those distance >400m against body armor is close to zero. Then the Russian 9x39mm can do all the job of 5.56/5.45 and do it even better. Thus I expect great revolution in infantry weapon after Iraq/Afghanistan, like after AK-47 invention or 5.56 coming. Old calibers just cant satisfy the main players. I expect more inclination in Russia and its proxies towards 9x39, which has proved itself as exellent. Of course this Tungsten carbid cor round much more expensive that any 5.56 NATO, and high tech. equipement is needed for its manufacturing, but the soldier's life is still more valuable. It's even good, while an expensive weapon is less accesseble for terrorists.

I also expect recoil-balanced systems for 9x39mm will appear, so the accuratness of fire will not fall behind 5.56mm.

I still dont see any revolutionary round on the West like 9x39 apropos. The turning to M-14 with 7.62 NATO is certainly regress, while its round is too powerfull for accurate automatic fire. Even the old good Russian 7.62x39 1943y is better for such purpose. So, may be the turn for completely new 6.xx mm expected indeed...

Main infantry AR should be able to do any job, shot effectively at most distances, be very reliable and resonable cheap. There is no such weapon in the sight for 9x39, and i pretty much doubt anyone can designe it in near future. I'll stress it - for special forces we could see many funny things. But as replacement for main infantry AR - not.

P.S. Note, how 99% of any western forum blame Ak-47 for its bad accuracy. Basically, you oppose them saying 350+m accuracy is not important.

 

[extern]

I'll stress it - for special forces we could see many funny things. But as replacement for main infantry AR - not.

- May be it's a picture we all must submit with that. No universal infantry weapon can exist and changing the weapons according to expected battlefield conditions - is a right way. However, if we look on what round is really fighting in contemporal Russia - it's 9x39 with combination of 7.62x54R for SVD, SVU, SVU-A automatic sniper gun. while 5.45mm remains for big, highly improbable conflict.

P.S. Note, how 99% of any western forum blame Ak-47 for its bad accuracy. Basically, you oppose them saying 350+m accuracy is not important.

On such distance (400 and more) you hardly can catch the enemy in the sight without optic, so what automatic fire can worth in this situation? They blame AK-47 prob. bcz the name Kalashnikov provoks them cramps. I personally shoot from AK-47, AK-74 and M-16 (standart and shorten) so can to compare: the 5.45 mm AK-74 is just accurate as M-16, however the AK-47 is not. But the reclamations for AK-74 during the Afghan war were the same like now for M-16: low lethality, too much recuchette in mounted areas, hardly penetrates greens.

If one ultimately wants an option for automatic fire for close distance dogfight, there is no problem to combine 7.62x54R or 7.62 NATO sniper rifle with automatic fire, like on SVU-A already exists. However, nobody can expect high burst fire rate with 7.62x54R.

 

[knightz33]

Well, as for now, i do not see a need in changing the m16 when they're still working perfectly fine. Perhaps in another 5-10 years from now,then it should be time America starts researching on better guns with longer range and less recoil. And by the way, the America's guns have not be outclassed by the Russians yet...

 

[Ares]

Isnt the M4 Carbine replacing the M16 ?

 

[walle]

I was wondering; your enemies weapon of choice has been the AK-47, a weapon that has stood the test of time whilst you have gone through 5 different service rifles, what’s going on chaps? Would it not be better to stick to the M16?, its flaws has (as far as I know) been ironed out, is this yet another attempt from your defence industry to earn a “few” dollars instead of making sure that your soldiers has the best possible weapon in a combat environment by keeping the M16? After all, being somewhat of a test subject as a soldier as to satisfy the arms industries eager to earn money (should that be the case) would make me feel furious as a grunt. Lastly, and most importantly; what to the craftsmen (soldiers) using the tool have to say? If they were to be pleased with the weapon, then why in gods name replace it?

 

[knightz33]

Haha...a point you got there.....why replace the m16??? Its still a working well....and if there's no complain, why replace it???

 

[Ares]

actually the weapon of choice for most of America's enemies are the 5.45mm AK-74 which is a more effective combat weapon and inflicts more damage once it has hit a soldier.

 

[knightz33]

Serious??? I didnt know about that....but i have read that the ak-47 is a highly sought choice primarily because the recoil is not so strong...and its cost(its cheap)...

 

[Ares]

Ak-74's and Ak-47s are nearly the same price. Ak-74M's can go for like 200$'s with cartridges. Also the Ak-74 is more effective at longer ranges (>300m and more).

 

[Chrom]

actually the weapon of choice for most of America's enemies are the 5.45mm AK-74 which is a more effective combat weapon and inflicts more damage once it has hit a soldier.

Unless you are describing Russia and some of former USSR republics as "most of America's enemies" - you are wrong. AK-74 is only prolifirated in ex-USSR. The rest of the wold use AK-47 derriviatives.

 

[Ares]

The Northern Alliance , Taliban ,Al-Qaeda, Hizbullah , Sunni/Shiite insurgent groups and numerous other groups fighting against America have AK-74's. Its a well known fact. In some ways I did mean the former USSR republics but Ak-74's like Ak-47's are dirt cheap especially when you can get an AK-74M for about $ 200 (depending on whom ure buying from etc....) so its not hard to profilerate.

Some of the other nations who use AK-74 are Iran , Iraq , Egypt and others.

 

[Chrom]

The Northern Alliance , Taliban ,Al-Qaeda, Hizbullah , Sunni/Shiite insurgent groups and numerous other groups fighting against America have AK-74's. Its a well known fact. In some ways I did mean the former USSR republics but Ak-74's like Ak-47's are dirt cheap especially when you can get an AK-74M for about $ 200 (depending on whom ure buying from etc....) so its not hard to profilerate.

Some of the other nations who use AK-74 are Iran , Iraq , Egypt and others.

You mean they have some examples of AK-74? No wonder. But i'll bet they have more 1895 year produced Enfilds rifles than AK-74. I'm sure for every AK-74 there are like 100 AK-47 in Afganistan. And i absolutely dont belive you can find any examples of AK-74 in Hizbullah hands and in Iraq. You will not be able to get ammo. It is so UNPRACTICAL what only complete masohistic moron would prefer to take AK-74 in Iraq. In short, proof it.

P.S. Iran dont use it. Egypet dont use it. Iraq dont use it.

 

[extern]

Isnt the M4 Carbine replacing the M16 ?

So what? It's only an avatar of the famous AR-15, just like the M16 is. BTW the sniper rifles in US army will be standartize with XM-110 SASS - the 7.62 variant of the principal same construction AR-10. Interestingly, all the competitors for that army tender also displayed the AR-10 variants, means Stoner the Great only competed with himself. So the current process in US Army is mostly unification on the base of AR-15/AR-10 platform. However the sound reducing cap is certainly with Russian influence

 

[GeneralGuderian]

I believe we should replace the M-16 with the HK416, or with a similar gun with a 6.5mm round or some other round. Or just upgrade current M-16's with the upper receivers. IIRC, I saw an article on military.com that a general in Japan bought his troops a lot of upper receivers to replace the one's on the M-16's/ M-4.

 

[suddendeath]

hey the m16 is a good rifle it is accurate and has good stopping power
for nato rounds.
it is the standard rifle meaning it would be difficult to change the
logistics as well as mass production will be needed and replacements too
and the armories are already tied up produing guns for use in iraq and afghanistan.as well as equipping the new armies.again training would be needed to give infantrymen the edge on the enemy.and besides they love those rifles.

 

[Waylander]

In the end cost is something of a difficult argument for me.

With a budget of nearly 400 billion $ buying a new service rifle shouldn't be that big of a problem.
I mean how many countries bought new service rifles during the last 40 years and didn't went bancrupt because of it?
And as if training for a new assault rifle would be that big of a problem. Otherwise the US Army has a much bigger problem...

 

[Chino]

I believe we should replace the M-16 with the HK416

With everyone talking about unreliability vs HK416, who can blame you?
...

The HK416 has ONLY ONE advantage over the M16 - a piston.

And even in overly severe lab test conditions, the piston HK416 was only ONE PERCENT more reliable than the M4.

Now you know why they revealed only the raw figures instead of breaking it down into easily-digestible percentages. And they also focus on saying the M4 was " LAST " out of all, but the " last " wasn't doing too bad either. 1.47% failure rate is pretty acceptable. It's just a clever ruse of letting you hear what they want you to hear. Research data manipulation is the oldest trick in the book.

...

The HK416 solves a problem, but it solves the wrong problem. The M16 is simply not as unreliable as people make it out to be. People with business interests are overblowing the reliability (non) issue with clever use of research data, the internet and the media (like Future Weapons infomercial).

I don't know what the US should get next, but there is a whole world out there chocked full of small arms designs, why go for a 1% better M4?

Obviously, the M16 should definitely be replaced!!

But just not by the HK416.

Talk about low expectations...!!!