Replacing the M-14, M-16, M-4, XM-8 et al

bulldogg

bulldogg

Milforum's Bouncer
During the Vietnam war the US military began to replace its primary infantry weapon the M-14 with the M-16.

Was this a mistake?

Or was this as I will argue an effort for the military-industrial-congressional complex to forever profit from the development of needless and ultimately sub standard and worthless "improvements" which has still not ended.

Or perhaps a lowering of standards in order to compensate those who just can't hack it? A process whose deadly end result is being played out now in Iraq.
 
I'm wondering what's wrong with the M-16.

I know it was promoted as "self-cleaning" which was a load of shit, and i also know that its range is not hugely awesome. But i thought that, from what i've seen and read, that it is a rather sturdy weapon good for urban and jungle fighting. I know that the ones with the higher-capacity magazines had a tendency to jam too. But still, which assault rifles would be better in terms of all-round effectiveness/price/reliability/capacity?

I'm not for or against it, i just wanna know what's wrong with it.

Rich.
 
Heh, yeah i knew that one dude, but i doubt that the Americans are gonna use weapons designed in Austria as their standard issue assault rifle. They always go for ones that are designed and made at home.

Steyr's are bloody awesome though aren't they! How much would they cost each?

Rich.
 
I still prefer AK's to M-16's, F88's or any other assualt rifle. Reliability and firepower is what i would need.
 
Yeah, AK's are pretty good, but like i said above, America's only really gonna use a rifle designed by them isn't it.

Rich.
 
Aks are very durable and reliable weapons. But it is very Inaccurate over long distances, thats why the Vietcong in the Vietnam War waited for our troops to walk right on them until openning fire.
 
LIBERTY said:
Aks are very durable and reliable weapons. But it is very Inaccurate over long distances, thats why the Vietcong in the Vietnam War waited for our troops to walk right on them until openning fire.
Click to expand...
Not only that, they are very easy and cheap to make, but they are getting outdated and they use 7.62x39mm rounds while NATO uses 7.62x51mm rounds.

And the AK isn't they only weapons the Vietcong had.

K-44
SKS
M1 Grand
M1 Carbine
PK Light
MAT-14

M14 Pros and Cons:

Pros:
The M14 is a great weapon, it shoots superbly, when you hit something, you know its going down, its one of the most durable, and its easy to mantain.

Cons:
Heavy, small mag, large round, too long for scouts and the like, jams easily, large mags, no auto-fire or burst.

M16 Pros and Cons:

Pros:
Light, durable, easy to maintain, burst and auto fire, large mag capacity, light mags, small, shoots excellent, NATO 5.56mm compatible, and has many variants.

Cons:
jams easy, short range, and I'm still thinking.

But what the US Army could do is have some men in a squad armed with M14A1's and the others with M4A1's and M16A4's. Cheap, effective and all NATO compatible.

The Xm8 feels like a toy, not like the M4. But I mean a real toy.
 
Ehhh...the M14 had a 30-round magazine just like the M16, and fired in both semi-auto and full-auto. Unfortunately the reason it was dropped was because it's big and heavy, and the recoil is ridiculous at full auto.

The M16 also doesn't jam thateasily if you've got time to keep it clean...if you don't you're in trouble though.
 
c/Commander said:
Unfortunately the reason it was dropped was because it's big and heavy, and the recoil is ridiculous at full auto.

The M16 also doesn't jam thateasily if you've got time to keep it clean...if you don't you're in trouble though.
Click to expand...

I agree. The M16 is a great little rifle that can be reliable, if kept clean. The problem is not so much with the rifle as it is with the cartridge, but that's a whole different can of worms, right?
The best upgrade would be to slap a 6mm barrel on, open up the neck on all 5.56 ammo and replace the dingy little 5.56 with a 6mm - instant upgrade in range, hitting power and penetration. What you have then is the 6x45 SAW round developed during the 70's.
 
bushpig1998 said:
c/Commander said:
Unfortunately the reason it was dropped was because it's big and heavy, and the recoil is ridiculous at full auto.

The M16 also doesn't jam thateasily if you've got time to keep it clean...if you don't you're in trouble though.
Click to expand...

I agree. The M16 is a great little rifle that can be reliable, if kept clean. The problem is not so much with the rifle as it is with the cartridge, but that's a whole different can of worms, right?
The best upgrade would be to slap a 6mm barrel on, open up the neck on all 5.56 ammo and replace the dingy little 5.56 with a 6mm - instant upgrade in range, hitting power and penetration. What you have then is the 6x45 SAW round developed during the 70's.
Click to expand...

Your talking about the new 6.8mm SPC catridge by Remington.
 
c/Commander said:
Ehhh...the M14 had a30-round magazine just like the M16, and fired in both semi-auto and full-auto. Unfortunately the reason it was dropped was because it's big and heavy, and the recoil is ridiculous at full auto.

The M16 also doesn't jam thateasily if you've got time to keep it clean...if you don't you're in trouble though.
Click to expand...

The 30-round mage was dropped because it would fall out of the feed, samething with the M1A1 Thompson. I knew it fire full auto but after 67' it was reconfigured for semi.
 
Cadet Seaman said:
bushpig1998 said:
c/Commander said:
Unfortunately the reason it was dropped was because it's big and heavy, and the recoil is ridiculous at full auto.

The M16 also doesn't jam thateasily if you've got time to keep it clean...if you don't you're in trouble though.
Click to expand...

I agree. The M16 is a great little rifle that can be reliable, if kept clean. The problem is not so much with the rifle as it is with the cartridge, but that's a whole different can of worms, right?
The best upgrade would be to slap a 6mm barrel on, open up the neck on all 5.56 ammo and replace the dingy little 5.56 with a 6mm - instant upgrade in range, hitting power and penetration. What you have then is the 6x45 SAW round developed during the 70's.
Click to expand...

Your talking about the new 6.8mm SPC catridge by Remington.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's not the 6.8 SPC. The 6.8 SPC would require the entire weapon to be rebuilt. The 6mm SAW round would onl require a barrel change, as the case dimensions remain the same, essentially. The same bolt, magazine, extractor, gas system and links (for SAW) can be used as with the 5.56 NATO. see "http://www.chuckhawks.com/subscribers/wildcat_cartridge_page/6x45mm.htm"
 
bushpig1998 said:
Cadet Seaman said:
bushpig1998 said:
c/Commander said:
Unfortunately the reason it was dropped was because it's big and heavy, and the recoil is ridiculous at full auto.

The M16 also doesn't jam thateasily if you've got time to keep it clean...if you don't you're in trouble though.
Click to expand...

I agree. The M16 is a great little rifle that can be reliable, if kept clean. The problem is not so much with the rifle as it is with the cartridge, but that's a whole different can of worms, right?
The best upgrade would be to slap a 6mm barrel on, open up the neck on all 5.56 ammo and replace the dingy little 5.56 with a 6mm - instant upgrade in range, hitting power and penetration. What you have then is the 6x45 SAW round developed during the 70's.
Click to expand...

Your talking about the new 6.8mm SPC catridge by Remington.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's not the 6.8 SPC. The 6.8 SPC would require the entire weapon to be rebuilt. The 6mm SAW round would onl require a barrel change, as the case dimensions remain the same, essentially. The same bolt, magazine, extractor, gas system and links (for SAW) can be used as with the 5.56 NATO. see "http://www.chuckhawks.com/subscribers/wildcat_cartridge_page/6x45mm.htm"
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you are so wrong. The 6.8m round doen't require the whole weapon to be rebuilt but for the upper reciver to be changed.
 
Ok, just the upper, magazines and optics.
Then we have to retool the factories producing the weapons' uppers and cartridges. The 6.8SPC is a great cartridge, but it is not really all that great at range. I'm not saying the 6x45 is better at all! I'm merely saying that if you are going to switch to an entirely new cartridge, don't muck around about it. Go to something that is truely an all rounder, like the 6.5 Grendel.
Personally, the 6x45 makes sense, since it is the minimum financial investment for a vastly superior round.
The difference in sectional density (and ballistic coeficient) between the 5.56 and 6mm rounds are really crazy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top