Time for M16 replacement?

[arcticpenguin]

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1762/4235739.html


U.S. officers in Iraq say the M-16A2 -- the latest incarnation of the 5.56 millimeter firearm -- is quietly being phased out of front-line service because it has proven too bulky for use inside the Humvees and armored vehicles that have emerged as the principal mode of military transportation since the end of major combat on May 1.

The M-16, at nearly 40 inches, is widely considered too long to aim quickly within the confines of a vehicle during firefights, when reaction time is a matter of life and death.
...
Instead of the M-16, which also is prone to jamming in Iraq's dusty environment, M-4 carbines are now widely issued to the troops.

The M-4 is essentially a shortened M-16A2, with a clipped barrel, partially retractable stock and a trigger mechanism modified to fire full-auto instead of three-shots bursts. It was first introduced as a personal defense weapon for clerks, drivers and other non-combat troops.
...
Although the M16A1 -- introduced in the early 1980s -- has been heavily modernized, experts say it still isn't as reliable as the AK-47 or its younger cousin, the AK-74. Both are said to have better "knockdown" power and can take more of a beating on the battlefield.
Is the M4 an appropriate replacement, or is it time for an all-new design?

[Ed]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1762/4235739.html


Is the M4 an appropriate replacement, or is it time for an all-new design?

Why not go with the basic AK design? After all, if we would trade in the m1911 for the Beretta, we clearly have no pride of ownership.

[arcticpenguin]

Doesn't the U.S. have some obligation to consider compatibility with other NATO weapons?

[Richard G]

The M-4 is not a replacement. It's the XM-8. It's already being tested by the Army. Read about it here:

http://www.hk-usa.com/

Also, here's an article on why HK built a plant in the USA...sounds alot like the Beretta M9 contract requirements for there to be a plant in the USA.

http://www.hk-usa.com/corporate/media/gbreak.html

The OICW is still in developement, quite a few years away. Its no more wieldy than an M-16. Take a look at this monstrosity:
http://www.glocktalk.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=2087713

Personally, I would replace the M-4 with the Kel Tac SU-16. They are cheaper, and lighter. They are fed with standard AR-15 magazines which the army already has, and is chambered in the same .223 calibre. (And the wifey is getting me one for Christmas, Woo Hoo)
SU-16:
http://www.kel-tec.com/images/SU-163viewsmerged.jpg

[Richard G]

Doesn't the U.S. have some obligation to consider compatibility with other NATO weapons?

No.

[Ranb]

While I was in the US Navy for 20 years, I was a technician, not a soldier. I have an AR15 which has never failed to fire even when dirty, but then I have not taken it to a jungle or a desert either. I have heard many people say they did not like the M16A1/A2 as a combat weapon, but NONE of the people I heard complain about the M16 were soldiers whose primary job was infantry or other "trigger pullers". All of the infantry soldiers I have personally spoken to said the M16 (post 1970) was reliable and accurate. While it was not always their favorite to have around, ( some prefered the M1A, bolt gun, or others) they did not think it was a bad weapon for general infantry use. Anyone here a professional trigger puller who can give their own opinion on the M16? Thanks.

Ranb

[EvilYeti]

If the army is so concerned with handling in cramped quarters, why don't they go with a bullpup design? The europeans use this almost exclusively now.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/aug_r.jpg

http://world.guns.ru/smg/fn_p90.jpg

[Ranb]

If the rifle is set up for right handed operation, then it is hard to shoot left handed while taking advantage of concealment for the right side of the body. The brass would hit your face while shooting left handed unless you took the required seconds/minutes to move the ejection port to the other side of the rifle.

I read a post a few years back about soldiers only walking on the left side of the street they patroled in case they had to duck for cover and shoot.

The rifles sure are compact though.

Ranb

[Zep]

Austeyr

http://www.ausmil.com/community/modules/My_eGallery/gallery/weapons/F88S.jpg

[EdipisReks]

i like the FN F2000 (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as41-e.htm) , myself. with the proper accessories, it does basically everything the OICW does in a smaller, lighter, and less expensive package. the G36 is another great system.

anyway, the Ak system isn't everything it's cracked up to be. they are fairly inaccurate, and the 74 uses a round even less powerfull than the 5.56 nato round. the m16a2 has been quietly replaced in some units by the m16a4. the a4 has a picatinny rail on top of the reciever. and the US does have an obligation, as a NATO member, to be standardized with other NATO nations. it causes a huge logistical problem if they aren't.

[Beanbag]

My personal preference is any H&K long weapon, based on the CETME-style system. I've shot 93's, 91's, and many of the MP-4/MP-5 variants. I've NEVER had one misfire, never had one fail to eject, and they've always held less than 3-inch groups at 100 yards using factory and military ammo of various manufacture. I also like the fact that you can pull two or three pins (depending on the model) and they fall apart in your hands for cleaning. The only gripe I've heard about them is that they eject too well. They tend to dent the spent cases as they flip against the ejection port, and you damned sure didn't want to be standing to the right of me when I ripped off a full magazine. I always asked for the range bench on the right to be considerate to my fellow shooters at the range. If it wasn't available, I'd start cadging sandbagsto build a wall.

Love any long H&K gun. Their pistols are not worth a damn. Trigger pull like a brick over a concrete step.

Regards;
Beanbag

[peptoabysmal]

I think war would be a lot more fun if we switched to the Rubberband Machine Gun (http://www.backyardartillery.com/machinegun/)

[Zep]

Following Pepto's lead...

MY suggestion!

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Ranb
If the rifle is set up for right handed operation, then it is hard to shoot left handed while taking advantage of concealment for the right side of the body. The brass would hit your face while shooting left handed unless you took the required seconds/minutes to move the ejection port to the other side of the rifle.


Well, there are a number of problems with bull-pups. The right/left handed thing is just one problem. The SA80 can only be fired right handed. Other problems include high trigger pressure due to the long trigger rod required, the weapons tend to be poorly balanced with most of the weight to the rear. In addition, its a slut to patrol with because the magazine is right where your arm wants to be so you have to bend your wrist quite awkwardly and you get bruises on your fore-arm from the magazine.

However, when it comes to the shooting, the SA80 is fantastically accurate and the long barreled LSW version with a bipod is quite amazing. You can get 10 rounds in a 20mm group at 100m without even trying very hard.

The other thing is that you get the stopping power of a real long-arm with the length of a carbine. And carbines are notoriously low on stopping power.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I think war would be a lot more fun if we switched to the Rubberband Machine Gun (http://www.backyardartillery.com/machinegun/)

I've fired one of those in real life, at a toy fair. They're awesome, but reload time is heavy :)

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Ranb
If the rifle is set up for right handed operation, then it is hard to shoot left handed while taking advantage of concealment for the right side of the body. The brass would hit your face while shooting left handed unless you took the required seconds/minutes to move the ejection port to the other side of the rifle.


The FN-P90 pictured above, while technically considered a sub-machine gun, is designed for ambidextrous use. Brass is ejected downwards.

[Psiload]

http://www.pyramydair.com/images/yl_r_1938.jpg

The Daisy Red Rider Model 1938

Reliable, rapid fire, large magazine, compact, and it packs plenty of punch... it has even been known to put out the occassional eye!

It also features an engraved stock, and that cool leather thingy on the lever.

It served me well in the trenches of my childhood neighborhood.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Beanbag
Their pistols are not worth a damn. Trigger pull like a brick over a concrete step.



that's funny, since many consider them the finest service pistols in the world. have you ever fired a P9/S, P7 series or a USP? none of those could be considered to have poor triggers. in fact, the P7 trigger is incredible. the only HK pistol that i know of with a poor trigger is the VP70, which was a DAO blowback.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


The FN-P90 pictured above, while technically considered a sub-machine gun, is designed for ambidextrous use. Brass is ejected downwards.

the FN P-90, while a neat gun, has a major flaw: if you drop it with a partially loaded magazine, the rounds scatter inside and cause a stoppage. it is an inherent problem with the magazine design, and to the best of my knowledge it has not been fixed yet.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Doesn't the U.S. have some obligation to consider compatibility with other NATO weapons?

If I'm not mistaken most other NATO countries use a 7.62 mm round that is a little shorter than the Warsaw Pact 7.62. I don't really know if that's as common a round now as in the past but we've been using the 5.56 mm round since at least Vietnam (before it was widespread in other NATO militaries).

While I certainly don't use the M-16 regularly (rarely is more like it), what I have read is that it is a decently to fairly reliable weapon. It's main advantage is that it out-ranges the AK-47 and provides decent stopping power in a low recoil weapon.

One of the reasons we use the smaller 5.56 round is that you can carry more. Most rounds fired miss and most kills are by multiple rounds. The M-16 allows you to put lot's of small holes in your target consistently rather than a few large ones every once in a while. Overall this comes out to a pretty lethal weapon.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Agammamon


If I'm not mistaken most other NATO countries use a 7.62 mm round that is a little shorter than the Warsaw Pact 7.62. I don't really know if that's as common a round now as in the past but we've been using the 5.56 mm round since at least Vietnam (before it was widespread in other NATO militaries).


No. All NATO countries have been using 5.56 (oh hell, its a .22 lets call a spade a spade) for quite a while now.

[corplinx]

Troops in Afghanistan were complaining about the stopping power of their 9mm sidearms also. We really need a rifle/pistol combo with heavier calibers for responding to disorganized small unarmored combatants.

A glock 45 or 10mm and some sort of 7.62 short rifle sound about right.

We need weapons that put someone down in two shots. Quick ambush response.

We arent fighting on frontlines anymore.......

[Richard G]

Troops in Afghanistan were complaining about the stopping power of their 9mm sidearms also.

This is because of the type of ammunition they are forced to use (ball full metal jacket), per Geneva Conventions. Load that same 9mm with hollowpoint ammo (like I do), and stopping power goes WAY up.

[Hexxenhammer]

Isn't the OICW supposed to replace the M-16 sometime in the next 10 years or so anyway?

http://a.abcnews.com/media/SciTech/images/ho_smart_gun_010925_n.jpg

[Kodiak]

For compact size and infrequent reloading, my choice is the Calico (http://www.wapahani.com/calico.html) .


http://www.wapahani.com/image55I.JPG

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Isn't the OICW supposed to replace the M-16 sometime in the next 10 years or so anyway?

http://a.abcnews.com/media/SciTech/images/ho_smart_gun_010925_n.jpg

Oops. OICW is outdated already. It's now known as the XM-29. Here's a new pic.

http://www.atk.com/productsPrecision/descriptions/products/Shoulder-firedWeapons/images/XM29_Block1.jpg

[Beanbag]

Originally posted by EdipisReks

the only HK pistol that i know of with a poor trigger is the VP70, which was a DAO blowback.

Yep. That's the one.

Beanbag

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Beanbag


Yep. That's the one.

Beanbag

try the rest, as they are fantastic. the VP70 was a low production pistol from the 70's that HK admitted was a failure. it did, however, usher in the age of polymer frame pistols. their handguns, both before and after the VP70, are some of the very best.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by EdipisReks

try the rest, as they are fantastic. the VP70 was a low production pistol from the 70's that HK admitted was a failure. it did, however, usher in the age of polymer frame pistols. their handguns, both before and after the VP70, are some of the very best.

Yeah, if I was looking for CCW I would definately go with the .45 UCP.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Yeah, if I was looking for CCW I would definately go with the .45 UCP.

the full sized USP's are a bit bulky for concealed, though the compact USP would fit the bill. i'd probably go Walther P99, myself. in the winter, i would want a nicely customized Colt Delta Elite.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer


Oops. OICW is outdated already. It's now known as the XM-29. Here's a new pic.

http://www.atk.com/productsPrecision/descriptions/products/Shoulder-firedWeapons/images/XM29_Block1.jpg
I already got one of these at toys-r-us Water comes out of the bottom barrel and ping pong balls out of the top....

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm not sure about the other bullpups (other than the SA-80 not being), but the Steyr AUG is ambidextrous.
http://remtek.com/arms/steyr/aug/auga1/a1.htm

The AUG is an ambidextrous rifle as the bolt is replaceable and the ejection port may be moved to either side of the receiver. Even the carrying strap swivels may be repositioned for convenient port-side carry.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by EdipisReks

the full sized USP's are a bit bulky for concealed, though the compact USP would fit the bill. i'd probably go Walther P99, myself. in the winter, i would want a nicely customized Colt Delta Elite.

Unless I could legally carry the normal capacity magazines I wouldnt bother with anything other than a high-caliber compact.

The Walther P99 would definately be my second choice, I have large hands and it feels so nice with the fat grip. I bought an airsoft version just cause I like the feel so much.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by corplinx
Troops in Afghanistan were complaining about the stopping power of their 9mm sidearms also. We really need a rifle/pistol combo with heavier calibers for responding to disorganized small unarmored combatants.

A glock 45 or 10mm and some sort of 7.62 short rifle sound about right.

We need weapons that put someone down in two shots. Quick ambush response.


It's not a question of caliber, its a question of weapon design and ammuntion.

The Vietnam era M16 would rip the enemy to pieces, lead ball ammo combined with a slight yaw in the bullets rotation caused it to spiral and fragment on impact.

The modern M16 uses higher powered hardened steel ammo and improved rifling to increase peformance at range and against armored opponents. Kind of pointless IMO, when most of the enemy doesnt even have shoes, let alone L2 kevlar body armor.

The problem is, unless you hit a vital spot, all you do is punch a neat hole in the enemy. Sure he may die of blood loss later, but in the meantime he can still fire back. This has been a problem ever since Somalia, when the army switched to AP ammo.

The solution is to investigate next generation multipurpose munitions, like the Raufoss round. A frangible lead copper and lead jacket around a hardened steel/tungsten penetrator would probably do the trick.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Unless I could legally carry the normal capacity magazines I wouldnt bother with anything other than a high-caliber compact.

The Walther P99 would definately be my second choice, I have large hands and it feels so nice with the fat grip. I bought an airsoft version just cause I like the feel so much.

the P99 does feel fantastic. hopefully the "assault weapons" ban will sunset next year and weapons such as the P99 will be useable with all capabilities intact.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
I'm not sure about the other bullpups (other than the SA-80 not being), but the Steyr AUG is ambidextrous.
http://remtek.com/arms/steyr/aug/auga1/a1.htm



Thats correct US. However the point is its not practical to faff about replacing bolts while someone is trying poke holes in you with their AK47.

[Earthborn]

it has proven too bulky for use inside the HumveesOkay, let's ignore for a moment that Humvees are pretty much as big a friggin' truck and it is pretty difficult to believe that these guns are so big that they wouldn't fit inside one.

Then there still is a problem in my mind, although it should be noted that I am not an expert on military strategy, so I may be completely wrong here, but...

... use them inside the humvee? Isn't it more sensible to open a window, sticking the thing out and shoot at things outside the humvee? :)

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Okay, let's ignore for a moment that Humvees are pretty much as big a friggin' truck and it is pretty difficult to believe that these guns are so big that they wouldn't fit inside one.

Then there still is a problem in my mind, although it should be noted that I am not an expert on military strategy, so I may be completely wrong here, but...

... use them inside the humvee? Isn't it more sensible to open a window, sticking the thing out and shoot at things outside the humvee? :)

mmmmm.... sarcasm?

The point is not that they dont fit inside, the point is that when the bullets start flying its difficult to get such an unwieldy long-arm pointed in the right direction when theres a half dozen more suited and booted sojers trying to do the same....

but you knew that didnt you?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Thats correct US. However the point is its not practical to faff about replacing bolts while someone is trying poke holes in you with their AK47.

I have to admit I have a soft spot for the Steyr, its just so clean and minimalistic.

I would worry more about muzzle climb with all the weight in the back of the gun. Must be why they have that big foregrip!

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


I have to admit I have a soft spot for the Steyr, its just so clean and minimalistic.

I would worry more about muzzle climb with all the weight in the back of the gun. Must be why they have that big foregrip!

I think it looks gay.

Muzzle climb during automatic firing is a problem with bullpups but if you have a good grip on your weapon, it should be controllable.

Why not buy one of these: Its a pig but you'll grow to love it
promise

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


No. All NATO countries have been using 5.56 (oh hell, its a .22 lets call a spade a spade) for quite a while now.

At least Norway still uses a 7.62mm rifle(*) (a variant of the H&K G-3), and the 7.62mm ammunition is of course also used for machine-guns by many of the NATO members.

[Jon_in_london]

Maybe its because I have a small and wrinkled todger but holding one of those 7.62 FN made GPMGs make me feel like a BIG man!!

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

I think it looks gay.

I'm sure the feeling is mutual

Why not buy one of these: Its a pig but you'll grow to love it
promise

Isn't that considered the worst modern assault rifle in active service?

[Larspeart]

The switch from the 1911 .45 to the Beretta 9mm was the biggest small arms mistake the army ever made. The sacrificed stopping power, noise (intimidation), reliablility, and frankly class, in favor of a cheaper, lighter weapon that fired smaller, cheaper ammo. $$$ was the ONLY reason to go with the 9mm.

As far as the standard combat rifle, the M16 was never a good idea. It is still a weak, underpowered and MISUSED gun that is inappropriate on the modern non-battlefield. It can pierce armor and go long ranges for all the times that the modern soldier (never) encounters the need to. As a poster ut it so well earlier, the average enemy seldom has shoes nowadays, and we are worried about AP rounds?

We need shorter range, larger caliber SOFT OR HOLLOWPOINT rounds that hit hard and stop fast. No one is ut there trying to shot engine blocks on enemy trucks with their M16. The enemy is not wearing ANY kind of body armor beyond an extra layer of rags or wool, and it has been proven AGAIN AND AGAIN that although the image of the american sniper/riflemen taking out targets at 500+ yards is a lovily image, most soldiers never fire their weapon until a target is within 50 (and even under 30) yards.

The M4 is not the answer either, as it is basically a shortened M16, which I already said is out-of-place and ill-used.

The army needs to give sniper rifles to snipers, and everyone else needs a rifle that is designed with a 50 yard target in mind, but is effective at 150 yards. Beyond that, no one is going to bother firing. They'll call in artillery for that, lol!


And for crying out loud, give them back their .45's!!

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Larspeart
As a poster ut it so well earlier, the average enemy seldom has shoes nowadays, and we are worried about AP rounds?

We need shorter range, larger caliber SOFT OR HOLLOWPOINT rounds that hit hard and stop fast. No one is ut there trying to shot engine blocks on enemy trucks with their M16. The enemy is not wearing ANY kind of body armor beyond an extra layer of rags or wool, and it has been proven AGAIN AND AGAIN that although the image of the american sniper/riflemen taking out targets at 500+ yards is a lovily image, most soldiers never fire their weapon until a target is within 50 (and even under 30) yards.


Then again, there is the matter of not "preparing for the previous war." The choice of a main infantry rifle has to be made with a ~30 years time horizon, and you have to make sure you choose a rifle that's useful in any kind of war you might get involved with in that period of time.

[corplinx]

They still make thompson .45 machine guns. That plus a Glock .45 or 10mm sidearm should be fine for civil patrol duties.

[Larspeart]

The days of large-scale battles with two steady armies fighting for ground are OVER. I don't see a shift in battle structures changing for the next 30 years. Small units of 5-12 men, doing house-to-house combat in urban situations, OR platoon sized engagements in close quarter combat in desert or jungle situations are going to be the norm for years to come.

We are a Cold War army in a terrorist/militia/urban combat age. Big, clunky, slow, and designed around distance, range, and facing an equal or advanced foe. We won't encounter any of those any time soon.

While the M16 firing full-auto AP rounds is great for an opponent at 100 yards wearing L2-Kevlar is great, it doesn't work on a modern 'battlefield'.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by corplinx
They still make thompson .45 machine guns. That plus a Glock .45 or 10mm sidearm should be fine for civil patrol duties.

The Thompson design is almost 100 years old at this point, its the first submachine gun ever made in fact. There are much better modern alternatives, like the HK UMP 45.

http://www.geocities.com/csguns/guide/UMP.jpg

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Larspeart
The switch from the 1911 .45 to the Beretta 9mm was the biggest small arms mistake the army ever made. The sacrificed stopping power, noise (intimidation), reliablility, and frankly class, in favor of a cheaper, lighter weapon that fired smaller, cheaper ammo. $$$ was the ONLY reason to go with the 9mm.

Actually, cost was only part of the reason for the switch. Ever since Vietnam the army has been operating under the model of large numbers of poorly trained troops with high-capacity weapons, rather than a core of highly trained marksmen. Considering we lost Vietnam, one would think the army would reconsider that strategy. The choice of a high capacity sidearm bought into this model. Regarding the Beretta specificaly, I've always felt its a fine 9mm sidearm.

Regardless, the troops shouldn't be using their sidearm unless they have no other option.

We need shorter range, larger caliber SOFT OR HOLLOWPOINT rounds that hit hard and stop fast.

Illegal under the Geneva convention. Not that we honor it anyway, so I admit thats a bit of a weak argument. Standard ball ammo will usually fragment on impact when fired from an M16, resulting in a similar effect.

And for crying out loud, give them back their .45's!!

As long as its a modern .45, like the HK USP I agree.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


As long as its a modern .45, like the HK USP I agree.

The elite marines have .45s. They use old colt frames, add caspian slides, hand fit them, and use wilson rogers magazines.

My only problem with the 1911 for combat is the capacity (7 or 8 rounds) and reliability in bad conditions.

A Glock 45acp or 10mm makes so much more sense since the capacity is higher and it can take any weather or torture given to it and still shoot.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by corplinx

A Glock 45acp or 10mm makes so much more sense since the capacity is higher and it can take any weather or torture given to it and still shoot.

Sure, but how many kills are made in the modern era with a sidearm? I know more veterans with knife than pistol kills.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Sure, but how many kills are made in the modern era with a sidearm? I know more veterans with knife than pistol kills.

Apparently, the big rumble to ditch the 9mm is coming from Afghanistan where often in clearing caves, nooks, etc sidearms were used.

Maybe if the troops had a decent sidearm they wouldn't be using their rifles so much.

Did you see "We Were Soldiers" ? (or read the book) Sam Eliot plays a hardcore sergeant who uses his trusty colt 1911 instead of the newer tactical rifles. And yes, the character he portrayed existed.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by corplinx


Apparently, the big rumble to ditch the 9mm is coming from Afghanistan where often in clearing caves, nooks, etc sidearms were used.


this is exactly why the USSOCOM has the HK Mk 23 Mod 0 pistol.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Isn't that considered the worst modern assault rifle in active service?

the SA80 is an awful rifle.

in my opinion, the M-16 is still a great gun. reliability problems were caused by ammunition companies using cheap powder instead of the good powder actually called for in the contract. the weapon is light, controllable, has plenty of power with proper shot placement and is reliable. my only qualm with the current iteration is the 3 round burst instead of full automatic ability. in an ambush, your best bet is extreme aggression. full automatic makes this a lot easier, when suppressing fire is more important than well aimed shots.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


the SA80 is an awful rifle.


You have used it then? Everyone slags it off, 90% of those who do have never even touched one and most of the remaining 10% have never used anything else. The A2 version is apparently very reliable, judging from the notable abscence of bitching from our lads in Iraq.

Originally posted by EdipisReks


in my opinion, the M-16 is still a great gun.


I would abdicate my opinion on the M16 to the SAS. They think its pretty good and I think they know a little more about soldiering than anyone here.

[Larspeart]

I own a Para 14.45 with a 14 round magazine. It is a 100% Colt 1911-based gun (and won handgun of the year 2 years in a row). It has GREAT ammo capacity for a .45, is lightweight for it's type, VERY reliable, fast-shooting, and more accurate then any other production .45. That solves your 7-8 round magazine problems with the 1911.

I've looked at demos of the SA80 and wasn't impressed.

The M16 is still a 'good gun', but it is an ill-used one. It does not fit on a modern battlefield. Mobility with it is tougher then with a smaller assault rifle, the burst mode is a travesty (if nothing else, make the damn think have a full auto mode), and it being lightweight also makes it a VERY poor close combat-blunt weapon. In other words, you're not gonna be able to crack heads with it if you have to get in close, and you often don't have time to go for your knife.

The M4 is a start but certainly isn't the answer. It is shorter, has a full auto, and is lighter, but otherwise, it is still, essentially, an M16.

The US needs to go back to 7.62, and NATO or not, use REAL ammo- hollowpoints.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by corplinx

Apparently, the big rumble to ditch the 9mm is coming from Afghanistan where often in clearing caves, nooks, etc sidearms were used.

Well, the 9mm would be fine for this if it wasn't for the geneva convention restrictions on ammo types. A 9mm hollowpoint has plenty of stopping power.

Maybe if the troops had a decent sidearm they wouldn't be using their rifles so much.

I really, really doubt that. In the Marines, for example, the only people that carry sidearms are drivers, officers, etc. They carry it in lieu of a rifle. Maybe the army is different but it's my understanding that unless you are special forces you (usually) only carry one weapon.

Did you see "We Were Soldiers" ? (or read the book) Sam Eliot plays a hardcore sergeant who uses his trusty colt 1911 instead of the newer tactical rifles. And yes, the character he portrayed existed.

I'm sure he was, but he was an officer supported by hundreds of rifle troops, so he could afford to sit back and pick off anyone that broke through the ranks.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Larspeart

I've looked at demos of the SA80 and wasn't impressed.

and it being lightweight also makes it a VERY poor close combat-blunt weapon.



What demos?

IMO if you asked most infantrymen if they would like a lightweight rifle or a heavyclub, they would chose the rifle.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Larspeart
I own a Para 14.45 with a 14 round magazine. It is a 100% Colt 1911-based gun (and won handgun of the year 2 years in a row). It has GREAT ammo capacity for a .45, is lightweight for it's type, VERY reliable, fast-shooting, and more accurate then any other production .45. That solves your 7-8 round magazine problems with the 1911.


The US needs to go back to 7.62, and NATO or not, use REAL ammo- hollowpoints.

I carry a Kimber Pro-Carry Series I beneath my stylish black fleece vest (with tux the penguin on it). I love the 1911. SIG is about to release a new 1911 that makes me drool. Only a gun hobbyist or a machinist can properly appreciate the evolution of the 1911.

However, with the reliability and simplicity of the glock, I see no reason to go back to the 1911 for military use for any reason other than nostalgia.

Bury it in mud, freeze it in ice, bury it in sand, run over with a hummer, dunk it in water, it still shoots.

As for hollow-points, I think it would be easier to switch to a heavier caliber than it would be to pull out of geneva. Even if you could use hollow points the 9mm should still be out of the running since a hollow point expansion is not a guarantee on each shot. The military shouldnt be using less than a 10mm or hot 45 acp loads for sidearms.

[Garrette]

For Earthborn:

As as already been stated, the issue isn't that M16s won't fit into a HMMWV (the actual acronym that is pronounced 'Humvee'); the issue is mobility of the weapon inside and ease of pointing it in the right direction along with not getting it hung up on something inside. HMMWVs are large, yes, but that does not mean they are roomy; plus, they come in different configurations. In most cases, there will be a radio mount between the two front seats. If it is a four-seater and armored, the top-gunner will be standing between the two back-seats. Leg room is almost non-existent. Soldiers will also be wearing their protective vests with accoutrements, including canteens (or the more and more ubiquitous Camelbak(TM)). If it's armored, there is no space to maneuver the barrel of the weapon. If it's not, the doors are usually removed to allow that space and to allow for quick exiting in a static firefight, in which case, the long M16 becomes a significant obstacle during dismount, particularly if the soldier has the seatbelt on. Simple things like whether or not to wear a seatbelt, if and how to wear a canteen, where to carry extra magazines, all become vastly important tactically.

Yes, the long M16 is a problem in HMMWVs; a significant one.

----

For Leif Roar:

Thank you for your comment on the 30 year horizon for development of new weapons. I don't know if 30 years is the right number or not, but I do know the principle is a crucial one that is often overlooked.

-----

For Larspeart:

It is unwise to make categorial statements such as "The days of large-scale battles...are over." Large standing armies exist outside the United States; some of them belonging to potential adversaries. Smaller scale may be more likely, but no trend is forever. Preparation for both types is necessary and possible.

[Jon_in_london]

Larspeart:

You do realise that certain people have been saying "The days of large-scale battles...are over." since the end of WWII. Of course, most of these people are politicians who want to scrooge on the defence budget.......