Poll: Yet another gun thread!

[Canid117]

So as we all know the design for the M-16 is a little over 50 years old. It is a venerable weapons system that works well and is highly adaptable. With that in mind it will probably last another good 20 years or so before it is completely replaced because why fix what isn't really broken. Though we all like to predict what is coming in the future so my question is as follows. What do you think would make the best replacement for our old friend the M-16 family of weapons and why? Give some good thought out reasons for why your personal choice is the best option.


And please no "I think it looks kewl in this one game I play." That means only weapons that are currently available or on the drawing board folks and you have to give actual reasons. Though I do encourage you to post images of your weapon of choice. Just because your personal opinion on the aesthetics is not a legitimate reason doesn't mean we can't appreciate some pics.


Notice: All opinions are subject to disagreement. If I or anyone else disagrees with your choice either ignore our post or defend your choice. Please do not go "I was only sharing my opinion waaaah!" Either back up your statements or grow some thicker skin. Those with personal experience with assault weapons, especially combat experience are encouraged to give their two cents.

Things that should be considered when choosing a weapon:
-Portability
-Ergonomics
-Weight
-Stopping Power
-Logistics (weapons using an already established round and magazine would make logistics much friendlier to the Military's gunnery sergeants.)
-Recoil
-Accuracy
-Durability
-Range
-Adaptability & Accessories
-Cost Per Unit
etc

 

[Count Igor]

Things that should be considered when choosing a weapon:
-Portability
-Ergonomics
-Weight
-Stopping Power
-Logistics (weapons using an already established round and magazine would make logistics much friendlier to the Military's gunnery sergeants.)
-Recoil
-Accuracy
-Durability
-Range
-Adaptability & Accessories
-Cost Per Unit
etc

My Fist.
It's Portable.
Ergonomics... too tired to look it up, so my fists are better.Ha. I think my fists beat all in this sense.
Stopping power.. I can stop them well enough.
Logistics. Well it's got a well established round. Round 1 and they're down. And it likes several magazines.
Recoil. None, pretty much!
Fairly Accurate.
Durable... against what?
Range. Ok. Not so good.
It adapts well, and accessories are EVERYTHING.
Costs? Free!

 

[L3m0n_L1m3]

I always thought that the ACR, SCAR-H and XM8 would be good alternatives (although the XM8 got cancelled despite passing all the tests.)

 

[Canid117]

I always thought that the ACR, SCAR-H and XM8 would be good alternatives (although the XM8 got cancelled despite passing all the tests.)

I believe the XM8 had horrible failing issues in high heat environments. Something about the plastic melting.

Ergonomics... too tired to look it up, so my fists are better.

Ergonomics is how comfortable something is to hold and use.

 

[natster43]

The XM8. From what I remember it was extremely light, reliable and did not easily jam from sand or mud getting into it, and was easily able to be customized to a different type of gun (I think there is a sniper rifle, SMG, and LMG variants besides the Assault Rifle). But production for that gun ended a in 2005 I think. Some of this information may be wrong though.

 

[Scolar Visari]

So as we all know the design for the M-16 is a little over 50 years old. It is a venerable weapons system that works well and is highly adaptable. With that in mind it will probably last another good 20 years or so before it is completely replaced because why fix what isn't really broken. Though we all like to predict what is coming in the future so my question is as follows. What do you think would make the best replacement for our old friend the M-16 family of weapons and why? Give some good thought out reasons for why your personal choice is the best option.


And please no "I think it looks kewl in this one game I play." That means only weapons that are currently available or on the drawing board folks and you have to give actual reasons. Though I do encourage you to post images of your weapon of choice. Just because your personal opinion on the aesthetics is not a legitimate reason doesn't mean we can't appreciate some pics.


Notice: All opinions are subject to disagreement. If I or anyone else disagrees with your choice either ignore our post or defend your choice. Please do not go "I was only sharing my opinion waaaah!" Either back up your statements or grow some thicker skin. Those with personal experience with assault weapons, especially combat experience are encouraged to give their two cents.

Things that should be considered when choosing a weapon:
-Portability
-Ergonomics
-Weight
-Stopping Power
-Logistics (weapons using an already established round and magazine would make logistics much friendlier to the Military's gunnery sergeants.)
-Recoil
-Accuracy
-Durability
-Range
-Adaptability & Accessories
-Cost Per Unit
etc

Oh fucking finally, somebody who at least has some semblance of experience starting a firearms thread. Thank you soooo much.

Getting away from my creepy love of you, I'd put a little money on the SCAR L/H being the next general issue rifle, at least for the Army. As of right now, constantly upgrading the M16 seems like the most cost effective measure.

 

[manaman]

OP: I thought you might be interested in this. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,898054,00.html] It is the original article from 63 announcing the M14s replacement the M16.

The XM8. From what I remember it was extremely light, reliable and did not easily jam from sand or mud getting into it, and was easily able to be customized to a different type of gun (I think there is a sniper rifle, SMG, and LMG variants besides the Assault Rifle). But production for that gun ended a in 2005 I think. Some of this information may be wrong though.

On paper the XM8 looked great, it didn't pass muster for the army during field testing. Especially after the hand guards melted under sustained fire (not just one freak incident). Also the army was pressured to open the testing to other manufacturers as the competition H&K won that started the army's testing of the XM8 was pretty much for an entierly different gun then what H&K finally delivered as the XM8.

There where quite a few other things going on as well, but suffice it to say the weapon was only showing promise until other manufacturers started showing what they could do with modular tech.

 

[Canid117]

OP: I thought you might be interested in this. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,898054,00.html] It is the original article from 63 announcing the M14s replacement the M16.

Less likely to jam eh? That backfired at first. Stupid Army munitions board sabotaging the M-16.

Snip

Oh fucking finally, somebody who at least has some semblance of experience starting a firearms thread. Thank you soooo much.

Getting away from my creepy love of you, I'd put a little money on the SCAR L/H being the next general issue rifle, at least for the Army. As of right now, constantly upgrading the M16 seems like the most cost effective measure.

You sir are quite welcome.

 

[Geekosaurus]

Anything from these guys - Knight's Armament:

http://www.knightarmco.com/

Better bullets and weapons are out there but governments aren't willing to pay the high prices that third party manufactures are charging. It's like that 'Dragon Skin' body armour - it's miles better than the armour soldiers are issued with, but governments wont buy it for their armies because it's just too expensive.

 

[Canid117]

Anything from these guys - Knight's Armament:

http://www.knightarmco.com/

Better bullets and weapons are out there but governments aren't willing to pay the high prices that third party manufactures are charging. It's like that 'Dragon Skin' body armour - it's miles better than the armour soldiers are issued with, but governments wont buy it for their armies because it's just too expensive.

According to this site (and future weapons as I recall) the sniper they have at the top of their catalog is being adopted.

 

[Scolar Visari]

Anything from these guys - Knight's Armament:

http://www.knightarmco.com/

Better bullets and weapons are out there but governments aren't willing to pay the high prices that third party manufactures are charging. It's like that 'Dragon Skin' body armour - it's miles better than the armour soldiers are issued with, but governments wont buy it for their armies because it's just too expensive.

Maybe your missing that part where Dragon Skin was an absolute fucking failure and fell apart within days. As I recall, the maker got sued because he apparently knew it was shitty and pushed it anyway.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Many words and a pretty picture

I would go with the ACR as well, but from what I've read the U.S. Army dropped trials for it because it didn't "double" the performance of the M16.

Personally, absent the ACR and flechette-based ammunition, I think the U.S. would be best served developing a rifle cartridge somewhere between the 5.56x45mm round NATO standard and the 7.62x39mm Warsaw Pact ammunition used by the AK-47 (or maybe adopt the 6.5x39mm Grendel). The weapon firing this round should use Heckler & Koch's gas piston system (a vast improvement over the M16's direct-impingement system), and (if possible) be constructed in a bullpup design to allow for a shorter overall weapon length without sacrificing barrel length. Picatinny rail on both sides of the weapon with emergency fold-up ironsights installed.

Or, if we're married to the 5.56mm round, we could go with the Tar-21 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar-21].

Above all else, though, the U.S. needs to ditch the M4. There's just too many problems with it- too high a rate of fire (this isn't a good thing), too much wear and heat generation, too much jamming.

 

[Geekosaurus]

Anything from these guys - Knight's Armament:

http://www.knightarmco.com/

Better bullets and weapons are out there but governments aren't willing to pay the high prices that third party manufactures are charging. It's like that 'Dragon Skin' body armour - it's miles better than the armour soldiers are issued with, but governments wont buy it for their armies because it's just too expensive.

According to this site (and future weapons as I recall) the sniper they have at the top of their catalog is being adopted.

Yeah the MR-110? I swear it used to be called something else. They also looked at the KAC PDW on Future Weapons. It uses a larger round than the standard 5.56 NATO round. and does more damage but has less recoil. Sounds like they should be adopting that too.

 

[Geekosaurus]

Anything from these guys - Knight's Armament:

http://www.knightarmco.com/

Better bullets and weapons are out there but governments aren't willing to pay the high prices that third party manufactures are charging. It's like that 'Dragon Skin' body armour - it's miles better than the armour soldiers are issued with, but governments wont buy it for their armies because it's just too expensive.

Maybe your missing that part where Dragon Skin was an absolute fucking failure and fell apart within days. As I recall, the maker got sued because he apparently knew it was shitty and pushed it anyway.

I actually didn't know that. I was under the impression that it was awesome but retardedly expensive.

 

[Gilhelmi]

snip It's like that 'Dragon Skin' body armour - it's miles better than the armour soldiers are issued with, but governments wont buy it for their armies because it's just too expensive.

Dragon Skin sucked. It failed when baked at 150 F. (that is the high temp in Iraq). The lamination melted that held the 'scales' together. The ABC 'special' did not even do the full Army testing (and I do think was rigged). Yes, in America where the High temps are 110 (the highest I have heard of) Dragon Skin would work fine. But in the riggers of real combat where their is no 'do over' test shots, it failed.

OT:I will miss the M-16. I hope they replace it with the one weapon that has interchangeable caliber ammo.

 

[Canid117]

Anything from these guys - Knight's Armament:

http://www.knightarmco.com/

Better bullets and weapons are out there but governments aren't willing to pay the high prices that third party manufactures are charging. It's like that 'Dragon Skin' body armour - it's miles better than the armour soldiers are issued with, but governments wont buy it for their armies because it's just too expensive.

According to this site (and future weapons as I recall) the sniper they have at the top of their catalog is being adopted.

Yeah the MR-110? I swear it used to be called something else. They also looked at the KAC PDW on Future Weapons. It uses a larger round than the standard 5.56 NATO round. and does more damage but has less recoil. Sounds like they should be adopting that too.

I highly doubt that the 6mm round has lower recoil than the 5.56. They are probably similar but I doubt it is actually lower. The problem with the 6mm round is that it is pretty exotic compared to much more common rounds like the 5.56 so logistics becomes a problem. There is one PDW that Magpul is working on that uses the 5.56 to alleviate these problems but it performs like a slightly shortened M4. I believe the barrel length is a choice between 10" and 12" while the standard M4 barrel is around 14.5". This means that it's stopping power drops off at range faster than assault rifles but then again it is a PDW and is meant to provide the power of an assault rifle with the size of a sub-machine gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magpul_PDR
EDIT: Found a picture of the weapon with a holographic sight attached.

 

[Scolar Visari]

Anything from these guys - Knight's Armament:

http://www.knightarmco.com/

Better bullets and weapons are out there but governments aren't willing to pay the high prices that third party manufactures are charging. It's like that 'Dragon Skin' body armour - it's miles better than the armour soldiers are issued with, but governments wont buy it for their armies because it's just too expensive.

According to this site (and future weapons as I recall) the sniper they have at the top of their catalog is being adopted.

Yeah the MR-110? I swear it used to be called something else. They also looked at the KAC PDW on Future Weapons. It uses a larger round than the standard 5.56 NATO round. and does more damage but has less recoil. Sounds like they should be adopting that too.

Since your other post about Dragon Skin isn't appearing,I'm responding to this one. Dragon Skin was/is a crapshoot. They claimed it worked real well, but a number of Army tests had shown the vests failing some basic tests and the company tried to play it off like it was nothing. As I remember, heat and diesel played hell with the vests and would cause the glue that held them together to fail.

 

[RheynbowDash]

My vote would be for the Remmington ACR.

Spoiler

 

[Geekosaurus]

Anything from these guys - Knight's Armament:

http://www.knightarmco.com/

Better bullets and weapons are out there but governments aren't willing to pay the high prices that third party manufactures are charging. It's like that 'Dragon Skin' body armour - it's miles better than the armour soldiers are issued with, but governments wont buy it for their armies because it's just too expensive.

According to this site (and future weapons as I recall) the sniper they have at the top of their catalog is being adopted.

Yeah the MR-110? I swear it used to be called something else. They also looked at the KAC PDW on Future Weapons. It uses a larger round than the standard 5.56 NATO round. and does more damage but has less recoil. Sounds like they should be adopting that too.

I highly doubt that the 6mm round has lower recoil than the 5.56. They are probably similar but I doubt it is actually lower. The problem with the 6mm round is that it is pretty exotic compared to much more common rounds like the 5.56 so logistics becomes a problem. There is one PDW that Magpul is working on that uses the 5.56 to alleviate these problems but it performs like a slightly shortened M4. I believe the barrel length is a choice between 10" and 12" while the standard M4 barrel is around 14.5". This means that it's stopping power drops off at range faster than assault rifles but then again it is a PDW and is meant to provide the power of an assault rifle with the size of a sub-machine gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magpul_PDR

Well they're claiming 50% less recoil on their website. Obviously I have no idea if that's true, that's just what they're claiming. And obviously availability would be a factor. But if they really wanted to find better replacements for their current weapons, they'd probably have to look at new cartridges. You can only do so much with the 5.56 round.