• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Iraq War Nail in the Coffin for M-16, Experts Say

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: rival
why dont they use mp5's
Click to expand...

Ummm... we are talking about rifles here. A MP5 fires a pistol cartridge, and an underpowered one, at that. You really think you want to shoot at a target 300+ yards away with a 9mm bullet?

Originally posted by: ThunderbirdElitist
The M-16 is a great rifle, have you ever shot one at a Range? I've shot a navy issue M-16 and a bulgarian issue AK-47, I'd take the M-16 or AR-15 variant ANY DAY.

These were my observations

M-16 Pro's

Very flat trajectory out to 1200yds
Little recoil
no overheating
fairly cheap ammo

AK-47
Enough recoil to cause you to have to reaquire a target
after about 30 rounds on full auto you can't even touch the front grip it is so hot
after it gets this hot, it shoots all over the place and it's impossible to predict it to compensate
noticeable trajectory - I has to make noticeable corrections for 1000yd shots.

All the army needs to do is make the M-16 a little less finicky in the mechanical area, but IMHO it is the superior combat rifle.
Click to expand...

Too bad the 5.56mm NATO round can't actually do much of anything at 1200 yards. You standard infantry engagement doesnt happen at 1200 yards. An M-16A2's maximum rated effective range for a point target is 550 meters. Area target: 800 meters. And "area target" means you are just trying to get the bullet into that area (ie, fire suppression), not actually hit the target. And since many troops are being issued M4s, 1200 yards is laughable as effective range. Especially since they arent exactly issued match grade ammo. Personally, I have my doubts about you shooting these, since at 1,000 yards its not like the bullet has only dropped a foot from zero (assuming it was set to a normal zero, ie less than 300 yards). You have to make large corrections for either of these when trying to aim it out to 1,000+ yards, though I grant the AK makes you adjust more.

I'll edit this later with more specific info, right now, I'm going to bed
 
xm8 - light, efficient killing machine

xm29 - need 4yr college degree to handle/operate, tries too hard, maybe a little ahead of it's time
 
I seem to recall H&K developing an automatic rifle that fired flechette ammunition. Advantages were higher magazine capacity due to smaller rounds, higher muzzle velocity, longer range, etc.

Any reason why they're not simply re-chambering the M-16 in 7.62mm?
 
Originally posted by: ThunderbirdElitist
The M-16 is a great rifle, have you ever shot one at a Range? I've shot a navy issue M-16 and a bulgarian issue AK-47, I'd take the M-16 or AR-15 variant ANY DAY.

These were my observations

M-16 Pro's

Very flat trajectory out to 1200yds
Little recoil
no overheating
fairly cheap ammo

AK-47
Enough recoil to cause you to have to reaquire a target
after about 30 rounds on full auto you can't even touch the front grip it is so hot
after it gets this hot, it shoots all over the place and it's impossible to predict it to compensate
noticeable trajectory - I has to make noticeable corrections for 1000yd shots.



All the army needs to do is make the M-16 a little less finicky in the mechanical area, but IMHO it is the superior combat rifle.
Click to expand...

"At the time, a leading U.S. weapons expert even recommended that American soldiers discard their M-16s and arm themselves with the Kalashnikov AK-47 rifle used by their Vietcong enemy. 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. "

LOL, I remember reading this a couple of months ago too, except from the mouths of soldiers in Iraq. Blah, M-16 may be a little better than the AK-47 (and yes I have fired a M-16 many times), but it is high maintenance and expensive, just like a high class hooker.
 
DISCLAIMER: I have not fired any of the weapons mentioned so far in this thread. Nor do I claim, or even think, I know about them.

Now then, I personaly do not like the "bull pup" design. It would seem to me to be harder to reload. Especially "under duress." But that is just a guess.

If long range is not a necessity, seeing as how Mookow mentioned the M4's being assigned, would not a carbine be a better choice than a rifle? Like the Colt M23??

EDIT: Found the name of the poster.
 
Now then, I personaly do not like the "bull pup" design. It would seem to me to be harder to reload. Especially "under duress." But that is just a guess.
Click to expand...

It shifts most of the weight to behind the handgrip, resulting in better balance. That's the main reason for the design; it's also a bit more compact than conventional setups.
 
Originally posted by: X-Man
I seem to recall H&K developing an automatic rifle that fired flechette ammunition. Advantages were higher magazine capacity due to smaller rounds, higher muzzle velocity, longer range, etc.

Any reason why they're not simply re-chambering the M-16 in 7.62mm?
Click to expand...
The forerunner of the M16, the AR10, was originally chambered for the 7.62x51 round... The weapon was scaled down for the 5.56x45 due to studies by the US Military that redefined what the battle rifle was to become, and the types of combat that were expected in the future... The M16 is really built around the 5.56x45 round, and essentially a new weapon would have to be used to fire the 7.62 NATO round, rather than re-configuring existing weapons...

A refined version of the AR10, the MK 11 Mod 0 (civillian version is called the SR-25) is in current use within the Special Operations community... Pic
 
I don't know anything about guns, but it would seem to me that SOMEONE could just improve the M16's weaknesses... there's probably some small time hobbyists who could modify one to make it much more reliable.
 
Originally posted by: Buck_Naked
Originally posted by: X-Man
I seem to recall H&K developing an automatic rifle that fired flechette ammunition. Advantages were higher magazine capacity due to smaller rounds, higher muzzle velocity, longer range, etc.

Any reason why they're not simply re-chambering the M-16 in 7.62mm?
Click to expand...
The forerunner of the M16, the AR10, was originally chambered for the 7.62x51 round... The weapon was scaled down for the 5.56x45 due to studies by the US Military that redefined what the battle rifle was to become, and the types of combat that were expected in the future... The M16 is really built around the 5.56x45 round, and essentially a new weapon would have to be used to fire the 7.62 NATO round, rather than re-configuring existing weapons...

A refined version of the AR10, the MK 11 Mod 0 (civillian version is called the SR-25) is in current use within the Special Operations community... Pic
Click to expand...

Interesting. For that matter they could always use an off-the-shelf weapon such as the Mini-30 or expand use of the SR-25.
 
Originally posted by: Pocatello
Possible replacement for the M-16?
Click to expand...

That's funny...before clicking on that link I was thinking we should just use the HK G36 and lo and behold... the next generation in based on the G36.


BTW, I never fully understood why they ditched the M14...fricken great rifle. A friend of mine has one (illegally...well it was legal when he acquired it) and it seems like a great long range assault rifle (like 4X more muzzle energy due to the larger bulllet).

But perhaps therein (longe range) lies the issue...
 
The Mini-30, by any stretch of the imagination, is not a military weapon...

Plus I think we are on different channels here... we are talking about two different rounds.... there is the 7.62x39, which the Mini-30 and some of the AK family of weapons is chambered for, and the 7.62x51, which was the main round for much of NATO during the cold war....

The 7.62x51 is terribly difficult to control in full auto, much heavier to carry, and really doesn't lend itself to the types of combat the US is expected to engage in....
 
Originally posted by: Buck_Naked
The Mini-30, by any stretch of the imagination, is not a military weapon...

Plus I think we are on different channels here... we are talking about two different rounds.... there is the 7.62x39, which the Mini-30 and some of the AK family of weapons is chambered for, and the 7.62x51, which was the main round for much of NATO during the cold war....
Click to expand...

The design of the Mini-30 and Mini-14 is loosely based on the M-1 Carbine used in WWII. I understand the diff between 39 and 51 (or .308), but wouldn't it be logical to use 7.62x39 considering the almost universal popularity of the AK-47 throughout the world? That probably makes too much logistical sense though, the Army would never do it. 😉
 
Actually the Mini 30 and Mini 14 are loosely based on the M1 Garand, not the M1 carbine.... again, two different weapons...

There have been attempts at rechambering the M16 for the 7.62x39 round, but the round itself needs a magazine with an extreme curve to it, and it hasn't worked well with the magazine well of the M16... here is one attempt... link...
 
Originally posted by: Yzzim
seems like an excellent time to revert back to the tried and true.....bow and arrow 😎
Click to expand...

screw that lets just give them all trench knives .....

honestly to all of you who are arguing that the m-16a2 is a great gun...it may be but i think the point was it sucks for urban combat b/c its just to long...... i dunno if some of the people in the thread get that.....
 
Originally posted by: Buck_Naked
Actually the Mini 30 and Mini 14 are loosely based on the M1 Garand, not the M1 carbine.... again, two different weapons...[/L]...
Click to expand...

They look pretty similar to me, but what would I know, I've only got a Carbine sitting in my closet. 😉 In my defense I've only been at the range with my brother and his Mini-14 once.

 
From Ruger...
Mini-14 Rifles:
The Ruger Mini-14 rifle is chambered for the popular and proven .223 Remington cartridge and has an adjustable rear sight. The Mini-14 employs a simple, rugged version of the Garand breechbolt locking system, with a fixed-piston gas system and self-cleaning moving gas cylinder.
Click to expand...

honestly to all of you who are arguing that the m-16a2 is a great gun...it may be but i think the point was it sucks for urban combat b/c its just to long...... i dunno if some of the people in the thread get that.....
Click to expand...
Actually, I agree with you, not really defending the M16A2... But one also has to argue that the 14.5" barrel of the M4 gives up a lot of velocity, and thus limits it range and reduces its lethality.... do you know why the military adopted the 14.5" barrel? So you could still use the already in place CAR length forend, and still mount a bayonet.... a rather dumb reason if you ask me, but getting anything pushed through the military is like.... well, I don't know what.... difficult is the first word that comes to mind....


 
Originally posted by: Buck_Naked
From Ruger...
Mini-14 Rifles:
The Ruger Mini-14 rifle is chambered for the popular and proven .223 Remington cartridge and has an adjustable rear sight. The Mini-14 employs a simple, rugged version of the Garand breechbolt locking system, with a fixed-piston gas system and self-cleaning moving gas cylinder.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying they look similar.

Curious though - if the Mini-14 design does come from a military rifle, why wouldn't the Mini-14 and 30 be considered a potential military rifle?

That SR-47 is very cool, thanks for the link!
 
Any number of reasons.... Its very loosely based on a weapon designed some 70 years ago... The original M1, and later the M14 (essentially an enhanced M1) was a very labor intensive and expensive weapon to make... The way the Mini 14 is made greatly reduces cost, but is not as durable... It doesn't offer the features called for in modern military weapon... straight pull stock, modularity, and on and on and on...

Edit: I didn't think you were disagreeing with me at all, I just wanted to back up what I was saying... Its not appearance, but actually the methods of operation that determines a weapons lineage....

Another thing I would like to point out... There is still a tremendous amount of development going on with the M16.... Weapons such as the SPR (Special Purpose Rifle) Link and the 6.8x43 round that I mentioned above... possibly going to a slightly longer barrel than the M4 (14.5"), but shorter than the M16A2 (20").... Who knows what may still yet become of the M16...
 
Originally posted by: ThunderbirdElitist

The M-16 is a great rifle, have you ever shot one at a Range? I've shot a navy issue M-16 and a bulgarian issue AK-47, I'd take the M-16 or AR-15 variant ANY DAY.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think shooting a rifle on a range is a little bit different than shooting the enemy in live combat. Even worse if its live urban combat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top