You've got to be a "Leg" right? It's been my experience that deer hunters make pretty good military riflemen. I shot "Expert" myself. But, I'm not out to prove anything, really. I am, however, extremely proud to have served in the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division. They are are true professionals in every sense of the word. And believe me, they don't have to prove THAT to anybody. "Strike Hold!!"Well, these numbers are available when you google "m16 max effective range".
And why are you quoting rifle serial numbers etc? Trying hard to prove something Mr Paratrooper/Deer Hunter?
The Next Infantry Assault rifle for the United States
- Thread starter Spetsznaz
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #102
Umm..uhhhThe H&K416 or FN SCAR would be nice.
I personally think the way this thread turned out to be, that the new Assault riffle will be off American Manufacture for sure, the United States has never been big on import, especially firearms import. could be wrong..:argue
EDIT: Changes Import
Last edited:
Do you mean "imports" or "exports?" They're two very, very different things. For fairly obvious strategic and military reasons, the US generally does not import weapons themselves, however, it has frequently imported weapons designs.
It's a multi-part issue and making generalizations about it seems unwise to me.
I'd refer you to the fact that the M240 and the M249 are both based on Belgian FN designs. The designs were imported, although the weapons themselves are made in the US.
This brings up the question regarding the studies that most gun battle engagements occur within 250m or less. Does every rifleman need a weapon that can cause certain levels of damage up to 600m-800m when the damage caused by the 5.56mm, in the ranges of typical gun battles, is probably more than enough? Don't get me wrong, a heavier caliber is still needed for when an opportunity for those rare long range shots arises, but maybe not to replace every weapon in a squad with a new caliber.
I guess if they can agree to a medium caliber (the 6.5mm seems to get the most praises for its stopping power and better long-range capability than the 6.8mm) and use that one round, that would be the best interim solution. Change the weapon so that most squad members have a 6.5mm carbine (a couple with an attached grenade launcher), one or two would have the long barrel 6.5mm version of the rifle for sniping, and one or two carry a 6.5mm SAW version with a heavier barrel, higher capacity magazine and bipod.
Although the money spent for such a temporary fix (of developing a new 6.5mm weapon system) would probably still be better invested in developing the true next generation weapon with greatly increased performance and lethality. They need to use the XM-25 concept but scale it down to fire mini-guided rounds. The rounds would be bigger than what is currently used in an assault rifle but still small enough to be portable and accurate where each round fired would almost be assured a devastating hit up to at least 600m (optimally to 1000m).
-----JT-----
I guess if they can agree to a medium caliber (the 6.5mm seems to get the most praises for its stopping power and better long-range capability than the 6.8mm) and use that one round, that would be the best interim solution. Change the weapon so that most squad members have a 6.5mm carbine (a couple with an attached grenade launcher), one or two would have the long barrel 6.5mm version of the rifle for sniping, and one or two carry a 6.5mm SAW version with a heavier barrel, higher capacity magazine and bipod.
Although the money spent for such a temporary fix (of developing a new 6.5mm weapon system) would probably still be better invested in developing the true next generation weapon with greatly increased performance and lethality. They need to use the XM-25 concept but scale it down to fire mini-guided rounds. The rounds would be bigger than what is currently used in an assault rifle but still small enough to be portable and accurate where each round fired would almost be assured a devastating hit up to at least 600m (optimally to 1000m).
-----JT-----
Nice, i like the scar too.:smokie
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Shame about the XM8, that was a great looking weapon. Never really saw the point of it though.
That's why the AK-47 was developed by Alexander Kaloshnikov. It works really well out to about 300 meters, and is really effective in close-combat situations. But, recent studies in Afghanistan have revealed that most gun engagements there occur within 800-1,000-meter range. Thus the need for better range capability. The Line Dogs have also been asking for a bigger piece of lead with Knockdown Power. The 5.56 M16 round moves really fast, creates a smaller wound channel and has a tendency to go right through the body. By the way, I've seen a lot of people (Iraqis) who had survived being shot with 7.62 X 39-mm rounds from AKs. The round has a tendancy to follow the curvature of the ribcage without destroying organs, and typically exits the body at the shoulder. Is that round too slow??
That depends on, where in Afghanistan, you are fighting. In the Green Zone of the Helman river, a typical gunfight is at the range between 10-50 meters because of the dense vegetation.
And Talibob has learned from former mistakes, so they dont take the fight out in the open, but prefere the Green Zone.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
Yes I think the AK round it too slow do do enough damge and the M16 round is too light to do enough damge, thats why I think the 6.8X43 round is needed. A combo of 6.8mm for close in fighting and 7.62 NATO for 800m firefights is the best setup that I can thinbk of.
If everyone ( USA,NATO<etc) agreed to standardise on a single caliber, to replace both the 5.65 & 7.62 NATO calibers, I would agree changing to a 6.8 mm calibre firearm would be a sensible option.
But to me all we need to do is go back to the existing standard 7.62 x 51 Nato and retire the 5.65.
There is a superb SCAR-H 7.62 x 51 NATO with both a short barrel CQL for MOUT and a long barrel STD for the 800m firefights, plus there is also a sniper variant, they all have over 80% standardised parts.
The USA & NATO ( plus all other Western countries, like Australia) could standardise on this firearm with production occurring within their own countries.
dragonfire
New Member
I didnt want to go through the entire thread but has the US considered the Israeli Tavor series, its being incorporated as the Indian Army's standard issue rifle for its Special Forces
Spot on with your "depends". An interesting article with an interesting discussion. It is important to keep in mind that the AR is just one of the weapons of the platoon - still a very important one of course, for the obvious reasons.
Firn
Jack Johnson
New Member
Meh, I guess even in 30 years the Army will still use the M16A7 or something like that.
The realy realy like that design, no matter how superior competeting rifles proof to be.
The realy realy like that design, no matter how superior competeting rifles proof to be.
Shane Sims
New Member
Response to new assault weapon
The debate for a new assault weapon is not a new one. The reality of the US Army getting a new assault weapon lies in the development of completely new, leap ahead technology, such as lasers. Until the happens, it is very unlikely the M16 or its family of variants will be replaced. The reason comes down to simple economics. The entire cost to the Army to replace not only its current inventory, but also all of its small arms parts, supporting ammunition, and revamping the entire doctrine and training spectrum to accomodate a new system is significant. SOCOM has different weapons because they can field to select, smaller units with much lower costs and do not have to worry about the volume and scale of the big, conventional Army. This, big US Army is over 1 million strong (this is including National Guard and Reserves) and until there is leap ahead technology, replacing a solid weapon like the M16 (now M4) is simply not going to happen. What will happen is the M16 will simply continue to morph into something more practical (like the M4) to meet the requirements of today's fighting Soldiers in a complex, urban oriented environment. This morphing does not cost anything new in terms of parts, bullets, and training as the corps weapon system remains intact.
The debate for a new assault weapon is not a new one. The reality of the US Army getting a new assault weapon lies in the development of completely new, leap ahead technology, such as lasers. Until the happens, it is very unlikely the M16 or its family of variants will be replaced. The reason comes down to simple economics. The entire cost to the Army to replace not only its current inventory, but also all of its small arms parts, supporting ammunition, and revamping the entire doctrine and training spectrum to accomodate a new system is significant. SOCOM has different weapons because they can field to select, smaller units with much lower costs and do not have to worry about the volume and scale of the big, conventional Army. This, big US Army is over 1 million strong (this is including National Guard and Reserves) and until there is leap ahead technology, replacing a solid weapon like the M16 (now M4) is simply not going to happen. What will happen is the M16 will simply continue to morph into something more practical (like the M4) to meet the requirements of today's fighting Soldiers in a complex, urban oriented environment. This morphing does not cost anything new in terms of parts, bullets, and training as the corps weapon system remains intact.
The US has a defence budget which is bigger than the rest of the world combined. I highly doubt that buying new rifles is beyond the ability of the US Army...
And if implementing a new assault rifle into the training is too much of a challenge than the Armed Forces of the United States have bigger problems than any of us can imagine...
Seriously, money and training are no showstoppers at all.
And if implementing a new assault rifle into the training is too much of a challenge than the Armed Forces of the United States have bigger problems than any of us can imagine...
Seriously, money and training are no showstoppers at all.
Shane Sims
New Member
I've been intimately involved with the testing of new weapon systems, and I will tell you, this is exactly why we will not have a new weapon system until there is new leap ahead technology. The other rifles do not "significantly" out perform the M16/M4. Until something comes along that does, we will not be carrying around a new system. Sorry, I know, there are a lot of cool systems out there, but that is the reality at the US Infantry Center, the proponency for the any new system. It is a cost/benefit analysis and the costs currently do not outweigh the benefits and I doubt they will until a new technology emerges.
The US has a defence budget which is bigger than the rest of the world combined. I highly doubt that buying new rifles is beyond the ability of the US Army...
And if implementing a new assault rifle into the training is too much of a challenge than the Armed Forces of the United States have bigger problems than any of us can imagine...
Seriously, money and training are no showstoppers at all.
Introduction of new weapon systems - any weapon systems, from a new combat aircraft to a new bayonet - is always only done in phases.
It is never an overnight process and the "simple economics" argument - costs/logistics/training is prohibitive - does not hold water.
For example, the huge size of the PLA, did not deter them from switching calibre/rifle. It took more than 10 years for them to phase in the new 5.8mm OBZ-95 bullpup (it is still an ongoing process) and it didn't make the PLA any less operationally-ready during the transition period.
Furthermore...
Every year, a certain amount of equipment that is too worn out is declared "condemned" (in SAF army language). And replacement is an ongoing process so the military HAS to buy new equipment any way.
The only question is whether they buy more of the same, or they start buying and phasing in a new (tested/approved) weapon.
For example the USMC SAW/IAR. Instead of buying new SAW to replace worn out ones, the USMC will be buying IAR and they will replace (some of) the SAW in phases with certain units converting earlier than others.
Just because a new weapon is to be introduced, doesn't mean the military has to suddenly procure 1 kazillion overnight. It may take 5 years or more for every unit to be converted without putting a huge dent on budgets or operational readiness.
...
But I do agree that merely changing a new calibre - e.g. 6.8mm - does not offer enough incentive for most armed forces to consider a major switch.
It is never an overnight process and the "simple economics" argument - costs/logistics/training is prohibitive - does not hold water.
For example, the huge size of the PLA, did not deter them from switching calibre/rifle. It took more than 10 years for them to phase in the new 5.8mm OBZ-95 bullpup (it is still an ongoing process) and it didn't make the PLA any less operationally-ready during the transition period.
Furthermore...
Every year, a certain amount of equipment that is too worn out is declared "condemned" (in SAF army language). And replacement is an ongoing process so the military HAS to buy new equipment any way.
The only question is whether they buy more of the same, or they start buying and phasing in a new (tested/approved) weapon.
For example the USMC SAW/IAR. Instead of buying new SAW to replace worn out ones, the USMC will be buying IAR and they will replace (some of) the SAW in phases with certain units converting earlier than others.
Just because a new weapon is to be introduced, doesn't mean the military has to suddenly procure 1 kazillion overnight. It may take 5 years or more for every unit to be converted without putting a huge dent on budgets or operational readiness.
...
But I do agree that merely changing a new calibre - e.g. 6.8mm - does not offer enough incentive for most armed forces to consider a major switch.
I'll be interested to hear how the new M855A1 performs in Afghanistan. If the claims being made about it are true then it diminishes the case for a switch to 6.8mm etc even further. From what I understand, in addition to other design improvements it's also been optimised for M-4 barrel lengths.
Article here if anyone wishes to read more:
Army begins shipping improved 5.56mm cartridge
Article here if anyone wishes to read more:
Army begins shipping improved 5.56mm cartridge
There is no doubt that the quality of the bullet is together with shot placement of the utmost importance for the terminal ballistics, more so in a calibre considered by hunters to be on the light side for animals of the same weight as a human. Add in the heat and stress of battle and all the cover, concealment, movement, adrenalin, fire and armour and it is plain that there are a lot of other factors which have to influence the design.
I guess that optimized for the M4 means that the powder used burns a bit faster and causes less muzzle flash compared to the older M855 which was meant to be fired out of a longer barrel. A good thing for sure, as the flash is among the most important give-aways and can impair your natural night vision, making it harder to sport things in the shadows or under bad light conditions.
Firn
AICfan1989
New Member
I still think the 6.8 would be better.
Would you know if the new M855A1 has the same powder load as the older M855?
It also may reduce muzzle flash but you still give away your position every time you fire just because of the noise.
I wonder how they are getting higher muzzle velocity too?