Replacing the M16/M4

I do not even know if what I said makes any sense in regards to rifles. I was just over-complicating things.

 

And its actually viable now. Pistols like the FN 45 Tactical and SMG's like the Vector make .45 not quite the unwieldy round it used to be.

I still prefer .40 S&W though.

 

You should know a few things about ordnance at least;
your plane has guns, we had flares.

Our only option was to dazzle the enemy into submission.....
while blaring Katy Perry's "Firework" from speakers mounted on wing pylons.

 

I thought they had problems with the higher pressure of the rounds and the head not being supported in the chamber.

 

True, but now you are mixing budgets. Besides, that still doesn't acknowledge the fact that there is no real need to upgrade our rifle systems. The M-4 isn't a perfect rifle, but it is plenty adequate for most combat situations. There is no reason to spend billions on upgrading the system right now.

 

Hearts and Minds, Herkdriver. Hearts and Minds.

 

so to speak.

On that note, exiting thread and let the true experts discuss.

 

I cannot believe I missed that one. Yeah. Let us go to our own thread where we are experts...

 

The M-4/-16 is a piece of crap. It's gas system alone is reason enough for an upgrade.

Besides, don't you thinkthe US military deserves the best weapons available?

 

I do, but I guarantee congress will disagree, especially right now with all of the argument over the deficit.

We'll be lucky to avoid a downsizing, much less adding a multi-billion dollar expense to replace a serviceable weapon.

 

I am sorry to interrupt again, but that sounds very familiar...



The government has shown a penchant to do just that.

 

The economy was a little better when they decided to replace the 1960s technology F-15.

The M-4 is about 30 years younger than the F-15, so if you want to make that comparison, give it a few decades and we will be prime for an upgrade.

 

The M-4 is not 30 years younger than the F-15. It's really nothing more than a cut down M-16. It's 60's tech too.

 

The two primary reasons the brass decided to go with the 5.56 are

A: soldiers and marines could carry more ammo by utilizing a lighter, smaller round.

B: the 5.56 was designed to wound rather than outright kill an enemy soldier as a wounded soldier requires the attentions of other soldiers thereby taking more soldiers out of the fight whereas a dead soldier can be left where he lies until the battle is over.


IMO there are much better assault rifles available than the M-4 in terms of reliability under battle field conditions. The M-4 and the M-16 require an almost OCD like obsession with cleanliness to guard against potential jams due to fouling.

 

I'm genuinely impressed the fly boys (and girls) were able to hijack a thread about rifles. The Air Force has always excelled at making itself the center of attention for no legitimate reason

The M-4 is fine considering our budget shortcomings. We can get at least another 10 years out of it.

 

That's a bit of an exaggeration. I thoroughly cleaned mine probably once a week with daily dust offs and had no problems. Of course I wasn't firing hundreds of rounds out of it on a daily basis. Any time you fired more than a few rounds you obviously had to give it a hardcore carbon scrubbing sesh.

 

Which is ridiculous when something as simple as a gas piston will eliminate that need.

 

You should always clean your weapons daily. I've yet to operate a weapon I'd feel comfortable not cleaning for a week....especially after firing hundreds of rounds. Could many do it? Yes, but professional soldiers don't leave anything to chance. A clean weapon is less likely to malfunction than a dirty one.

 

theres no real need for a replacement for the M-16/M-14.

The M-249 SAW is the real weapon that needs to be replaced. the negitive beta waves from your mind just thinking about it will cause it to jam.

 

I would be very interested to see some documentation to prove this.

 

Actually, I learend it in boot camp another way:

This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than the enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will. My rifle and I know that what counts in war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, or the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit.

My rifle is human, even as I am human, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strengths, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other.

Before God I swear this creed. My rifle and I are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.

So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy.

Amen.

 

No.

First of all, because "best" is largely a matter of opinion. What one person thinks of as "best", another will not think is best. And there are many things to consider when making this determination.

Calliber, weight, accuracy, range, magazine capacity, rate of fire, these are just some of the things that must be considered. Do we take a higher accuracy in exchange for weight? Do we reduce the accuracy for a higher rate of fire? Do we take a larger magazine capacity for a reduction of effective range?

And new things appear every other year. And the military is by nature a very conservative organization. They work on fixed budgets, and simply can't afford to replace their equipment very often. In fact, during my lifetime there have only been 3 primary service rifles for the US military.

I thankfully missed the M-16. But when I first joined the military we used the M-16A1. Then about the time I reenlisted, we switched to the M-16A2. That is still the primary service weapon, other then the units that use it's brother, the M4.

And replacing the M-16 series with a different rifle has a much higher cost then you seem to think. We have to replace all the magazines, bayonets, repair and replacement parts, tools, bore sights, chamber calibration rods, possibly even cleaning kits and night vision and other sights. Even the rifle racks in the armories would have to be replaced.

Not to mention the training everybody will have to get, from the riflemen to the armorers. One of the advantages of our changes so far is that training was mostly not needed. Each advance was a change from a prior model, with the largest single change being from the M-16A1 to the M-16A2 (which had a totally different sighting system).

And I am sorry, but I do not think the M-16 series is a "piece of crap". Having used this weapon for almost 30 years, I am familiar with it's little quirks and flaws. But when properly maintained and trained, it is one of the finest rifles in the world. I would take one over anything else in use in the world, including the Steyr AUG and Kalishnikov series weapons.

 

And plenty of rifles designs will fire just fine clean or dirty.

 

The F-22 costs $381 Million per aircraft. A single Bushmaster ACR costs $2,800. For the price of 1 F-22 we could buy about 136,000 ACRs, more than enough to equip every single combat arms soldier in the Active Army.

 

The US has more than that number of troops deployed to the middle east - all of which have to have a weapon. It is very important that deployed troops all use the same weapons for both logistical uniformity and for safety - when your buddy runs out of ammo, he will know everyone else's will fit his weapon, he doesn't have to check to see what they are carrying - so you'd have to replace all of them at once.

The US has another 50,000 troops deployed in areas that require each troop to have a weapon for security reasons.

Then you'd have to have enough weapons stateside to handle training, deployment overlap and weapon return time. You also didn't add in the cost to replace all of the accessories - magazines, weapons and ammo storage refitting, maintenance equipment, etc.

I think you are underestimating the cost of a new weapons system.