The Army is looking for a rifle to replace the m16

[94Winchester]

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Army is interested in replacing the M16/M4.

Army Sets Sights on New Rifle - WSJ.com

Since there are former military personal on the forum I was wondering what they think the rifle should be or what features it should have. Should the new rifle be a battle rifle or an assault rifle?

 

[NomadPilot]

These stories have been running off and on for years. Big Army isn't going to change its main rifle for at least another 15-20 years. Especially with the drawdowns coming, there's not going to be any money for "nice-to-have's." The combat for the foreseeable future is going to be largely MOOTW and MOUT, so I say a compact, accurate, carbine will best fit the bill. It needs to have a Pic rail for QD optics - from Aimpoints to scopes to lasers and NVD. Kinda like the M4.

 

[SOUTHPAWSHOOTER10]

They already have a replacement. It's called the m14...

 

[J E Custom]

They already have a replacement. It's called the m14...

+ 1

It is still the finest assault rifle made and if it were used /brought back it would change things
in Afghanistan.

The military has bought up all of the tooling , so they must be considering to use it or keep it
from everyone else.

For close combat, a shorter more compact rifle is better, but at any distance the m 14 would be my choice.

As usual our government wants to re invent the wheel.

J E CUSTOM

 

[nfhjr62]

Saw on the web at the shot show a company in calf. has a 50 cal. bulpup coming out in several mounts with the recoil of a 30/06

 

[ICANHITHIMMAN]

I'm a huge M14 fan, but I see it more as a stop gap than anything else. The ARMY is going to replace the M4 its going to happen its in the works.

That said there is nothing wrong with the M4/M16 platform they are running now that will not or is not being addressed by the carbine upgrade program.

 

[silvertip-co]

...took em long enough.

 

[J E Custom]

I'm a huge M14 fan, but I see it more as a stop gap than anything else. The ARMY is going to replace the M4 its going to happen its in the works.

That said there is nothing wrong with the M4/M16 platform they are running now that will not or is not being addressed by the carbine upgrade program.

I never have figured out why the military tries to make it a one rifle military.

We should be giving our servicemen the best rifle for the job and location.

We should provide superior firepower where ever we get into conflict and not try to
standardize on weapon for all uses.

A good example is our long range rifles, they are purpose built and perform better than
any other style of rifle at great distances.

And the M14 would not be as good for the close quarter combat as a bullpup design but
The bullpup design would be of little use in Afghanistan .

The point is , there is no perfect weapon for everything but the M14 would be hard to beat
in Afghanistan.

Just my 2 cents.

J E CUSTOM

 

[94Winchester]

I never have figured out why the military tries to make it a one rifle military.

We should be giving our servicemen the best rifle for the job and location.

We should provide superior firepower where ever we get into conflict and not try to
standardize on weapon for all uses.

A good example is our long range rifles, they are purpose built and perform better than
any other style of rifle at great distances.

And the M14 would not be as good for the close quarter combat as a bullpup design but
The bullpup design would be of little use in Afghanistan .

The point is , there is no perfect weapon for everything but the M14 would be hard to beat
in Afghanistan.

Just my 2 cents.

J E CUSTOM

I assume that the Army wants one rifle to do as many jobs as possible to keep from having logistics problems that would arise if the military had many different general issue weapons.

 

[ICANHITHIMMAN]

I never have figured out why the military tries to make it a one rifle military.

We should be giving our servicemen the best rifle for the job and location.

We should provide superior firepower where ever we get into conflict and not try to
standardize on weapon for all uses.

A good example is our long range rifles, they are purpose built and perform better than
any other style of rifle at great distances.

And the M14 would not be as good for the close quarter combat as a bullpup design but
The bullpup design would be of little use in Afghanistan .

The point is , there is no perfect weapon for everything but the M14 would be hard to beat
in Afghanistan.

Just my 2 cents.

J E CUSTOM

I agree there is no one do it all system. If we just switched the general issue ammo to something more effective it would be a great start. The carbine upgrade program is adding heavy barrels and full auto fire back to the system and I think free floating the handguards.

There are 3 new rounds out there. The SOST round is the new general issue round for the ARMY and I have heard ZIP on it from the release. The marrines are using MK272 or 262 and they have something else too.

 

[fj40mojo]

IMHO a modular design that could be adapted to be mission specific would give the flexibility that the US Military needs. I would like to see a cartridge upgrade. The 5.56 is adequate for CQB and moderate range, but quickly loses it's umph beyond 300m, 6.5 or 6.8 would be better. When the 5.56 was developed and adopted theory said that wounding a combatant took more soldiers off the battlefield than killing one but in todays environment a fight stopper is preferable given the nature of the current conflicts. Something along the lines of the .260Rem would give better eneregy on target and long range capability but would necessitate replacement of the M4 platform for the larger AR10 but the M249 could be eliminated in favor of the M240 modified for the new cartridge. Could narrow the logistics down to one small arms cartridge for rifle, SAW, platoon level crew served MG, and sniper/designated marksman.

 

[ICANHITHIMMAN]

Somehow I just don't see the replacement of the 5.56NATO. I could see new bullet designs and a shift in the interpretation of the Geneva Convention in relation to small arms projectiles.

If BIG ARMY could do what SOCOMS JAG did and declare hollow points and soft nose bullets ok for use by the rest of us, lethality of the 5.56 and 9mm platforms would go up astronomically.

(This is not verbatim just what I could remember off the top of my head)
The Geneva Conventions says that a small arms projectile will not cause unreasonable pain and suffering. SOCOMs JAG interpreted this as, what constitutes unreasonable pain and suffering when you trying to kill someone?

Hopefully advanced marksmanship training will be more accessible to a broader range of soldiers in the future. This paired with more lethal rounds that provide greater effect on target. If standard issue was the Mk262 (77g SMK) round that would be a great starting point.

 

[fj40mojo]

it was the Hague Convention III delclaration of the laws of wars that led to the wide spread use of FMJ ball type ammo.

The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

It goes on to say

The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.

I'm guessing that Afganistan didn't sign and I doubt Iraq did either meaning we are not bound by the contract ie anything goes.

I'd still like to see our armed forces wielding something of a larger caliber. IMHO the 6.5mm offers the best BC, best sectional density, and best terminal ballistics with out dramatically increasing felt recoil. If I were in the sandbox myself I'd want a friggin .50BMG, the farther away you can keep them the better off you are.

 

[zupatun]

I'd still like to see our armed forces wielding something of a larger caliber. IMHO the 6.5mm offers the best BC, best sectional density, and best terminal ballistics with out dramatically increasing felt recoil. If I were in the sandbox myself I'd want a friggin .50BMG, the farther away you can keep them the better off you are.

Being really far away presents some real issues...identifying targets, whether freindly or not is a big one. I'd always like to be out of range of the bad guys while still being able to give them a case of instant lead posioning

Matt