Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army

Other than for special operations purposes (as SpecOps troops can often get whatever weapons they want) it will be a very long time indeed that the 5.56mm M16/M4 platform will be replaced within Big Army. You can bet on it. Believe me, been there, done that.
 
Other than for special operations purposes (as SpecOps troops can often get whatever weapons they want) it will be a very long time indeed that the 5.56mm M16/M4 platform will be replaced within Big Army. You can bet on it. Believe me, been there, done that.

Yeah, I fear the next "big war" will involve something like, say, drones that deliver self-guided flying "bug" munitions to each enemy soldier's head and detonate a few grams of RDX. After that, it won't matter if we carry Brown Besses or plasma rifles in the 40 watt range.
 
I like what Vonn shared, and anyone who has had to go into the field with a direct impingement M-16 variant. In my little detachment we were able to carry pretty much what we wanted, so there were some other choices. The M-16 was not highly thought of, to say the least. From my own experience, I would hope that there would be, in addition to a standardized battle rife, a pistol caliber (compatible with side arm ammo) carbine weapon, that was compact and possibly in the blow back operating system for certain troop segments, not necessarily with selective rates of fire. I would hope that what ever battle rifle is selected, that it would not be a .223 caliber, and that it would not be a direct impingement operating system. The 7.62X39 round is a tough one to beat in a light infantry contest, especially as someone above suggested-in a much lighter platform, but politics may have a strong influence on that, and any decision. I'll say it again: ask the Vets and the troops.
 
Sometime before 9/11/01, my son's company was slated to test a bull-pup design with a snap on grenade launcher. He walked into the squad room on Monday morning and there were 20 prototypes laying on a table. "What's up First Sargent?", "You get to test this abortion!" My son picked up and carried it back to the 1st Sargent. It weighed 29 pounds (empty!) (a M-60 weighs 26 pounds) My son said "We have to get out of this!!" They were due to rotate to Haiti in a few months, so they went to see the CO. The 1st Sgt. walks in and asks the Captain if he'd seen this pile of XXXX, and threw the weapon on the desk with an enormous thump! They then conspired to get B Co, 315 AIR to "evaluate" the platform.

A service weapon must not require a HUMVEE to tote it around!

Ivan
 
Last edited:
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army


Here's a novel idea: let America stop fighting wars all over the world every 10 years for no good reason, and the Army wouldn't need another rifle. Yeah, that's a radical idea, I know... :rolleyes:

But if they really need a new one, they can contract for good-quality AK47s in caliber .223/5.56. Very rugged, nearly jam-proof, and they can use all the current 5.56 ammo.




--------------
 
I went along with internet lore on M14 vs M16, .308 vs 5.56, etc. till I saw this video from SmallArmsSolutions, "Why I despise the M14." I thought "Pfft, this clickbait otta be good for a laugh." But the guy seems to know what he's talking about and convinced me.

YouTube

As for the army's next rifle, I'm sure it'll be something made obsolete by the next generation of warfare before it's ever fielded.
 
Going through all the post on this thread shows the biggest problem when it comes to weapons. Everyone has different preference, different personalities, soldier with different body sizes and types.
Soldiers serving in different environments.
I'm a bullpup guy through and through. That's what I would rather use.
I know a marine that would rather use his own AK and carry a 44 Magnum. He was not a fan of what the military gave him to use.
 
In related actual news, the German army is looking for a replacement for the HK G 36, which is set to be phased out beginning in 2020.

It was announced today that ALL initial submissions failed preliminary testing.

For legal reasons, the Ministry of Defense apparently can't publish participants and details at this point of the process.

But scuttlebutt seems to agree that besides HK with the HK 433, Steyr and SIG were initially bidders; no word on others. SIG reportedly dropped out amid complaints that the process was rigged toward HK.
 
It is published that the Tavor with a 16.5" barrel is a bit shorter than an M4 with a 10.5" barrel and a collapsed stock.

The short overall length of the Tavor is an advantage when riding in an armoured personnel carrier and in clearing a room.
 
In related actual news, the German army is looking for a replacement for the HK G 36, which is set to be phased out beginning in 2020.

It was announced today that ALL initial submissions failed preliminary testing.

For legal reasons, the Ministry of Defense apparently can't publish participants and details at this point of the process.

But scuttlebutt seems to agree that besides HK with the HK 433, Steyr and SIG were initially bidders; no word on others. SIG reportedly dropped out amid complaints that the process was rigged toward HK.

Makes you wonder how demanding the Bundeswehr specification must be and how the manufacturers have screwed up not meeting it.
 
I do not see the U.S. military changing calibers. We just went through this whole debate with replacing the Beretta M9. The Army considered other calibers, but 9x19mm is a NATO standard and that is what the U.S. military will continue to use. Even MEU SOC and MARSOC units that had gone back to the M1911-A1 platform are now going back to the 9x19mm. So with 5.56x45mm being a NATO standard caliber, I find it highly unlikely that the U.S. is going to go a non-NATO caliber. If the Army wants more knockdown power, then they would likely have a rifle chambered in 7.62x51mm.
 
Yep...for a type of battle we don't fight any more.

Idea. Quit fighting the types of battles we have been fighting. The results have not been positive, though the rifle being used is not necessarily the problem. The round count per KIA has rose to the point of the totally absurd. Being able to carry and fire more ammo is not a solution when the projectiles have no impact value. The current rate is around 250,000 rounds per KIA. That is about a ton of bullets per KIA. Factor in the rate of about 1.5 per KIA by snipers and you HAVE to scratch your head and wonder.
 
In WWII the German rifle squad supported the machine gun where the US Army doctrine was the machine gun supported the rifle squad.

Today everyone in the US squad basically has a 5.56 machine gun .

Interestingly the military decided to pull M14's from mothballs then scoped and accurized them for squad use in Iraq and Afghanistan to support situations where the M16 was not up to the task...





kinda reminiscent of the Russians use of the Dragunov to support a squad of AK47's.
tumblr_mmczgvGPAw1r2k0doo1_1280.jpg
 
I've never been to Middle East, but spent time at White Sands.
The effect of wind on M16 vs M14 was easy to see. It's not that
M16 is not accurate, it is but doesn't have penetration power of
7.62 NATO. I think the next rifle will be developed around caseless cartridges. When they get the bugs out of caseless you
will be able to stick with 30cal and still carry reasonable combat
load of ammo.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top