A Rifle the U.S. Military Needs.

1100 Remington Man

Handloader
May 1, 2007
1,147
291
As I wright this the M16 is the longest serving service rifle in U.S. Military History, and Its time for a change. I was issued a M16 in the Marines and everyone one had problems so no I'm not a fan of the rifle or the 5.56 Caliber. The Troops need the best we can Manfacture.
It will not be cheap but we need to bring high tech to the new U.S. Service rifle, weight of new service rifle 8 1/2 lbs empty Max. I would think a M14 platform would be great but no full auto but the 3 shot burst capable, now the cartridge .260 Rem fireing a 123gr High BC bullet and a 140-143gr bullet for open terrain in a Stanless barrel with 1 in 8 1/8 twist.
Ever part on the M14 needs to be looked at and see if it could be lightened or improved, to hell with the cost and what ever exotic metals from the aerospace industry that can help should be used.
It needs a receiver that has a good mounting system for optical sights and night vision scopes with ease of take off and reinstalled with out much need for resighting in.
Its stock needs to be a composite of what ever type provides the best strength and stability all rifles need to be properly bedded.
Magazine's made out of stronger materials and lightened up with Standard Mag 20 rounds with some being 25 rounds.
This new rifle needs to be capable to engage targets to 800 Meters with a ballistic matched optical sight.
What say you ? Why Springfield does not do this I don't know ?
 
The military has to say they want a new rifle and are willing to pay for it... I don't know when that might happen...

Meanwhile, the M-16 & M-4 have been greatly improved over the older ones. I'll let those with more recent military experience speak on that issue, but I have been very impressed with the platform since about the mid/late 1980's when the Marines went about improving the M-16. It's become a very accurate and reliable platform.

Regards, Guy
 
I've never had the privilege to handle one of the newer models but the first issues were junk my first experience in basic training back in 1969 was what is this a cap gun? They had taken my M14 away from me and give me this light toy which failed to run threw the first 20 round magazine with out a stoppage and was replaced with 3 more before I got one that would work. I thought god I have to take this into battle I'm a dead man.
Now from what I have heard from recent retirees is the new ammo and up dates have made it a reliable platform that will get the job done though I would want a heavier round than the 5.56 if I had to carry one again and there are a lot that will fill the need like the 6.8,6.5 or 6mm. Think Creedmore.
 
The M4 has come a long way. I still don't like them but I doubt we'll ever see a modernized M14 back in service in any but a specialized role.

I think boosting the bore might be a good improvement to the 5.56...but all attempts to do so went nowhere.

IMHO, the next evolution of the U.S. military rifle will be something completely different.
 
We ran 5.56 and 7.62 in the FN Platforms. I ran around quite a few years with an HK416. The upgraded ammo made a huge difference in killing power. The 7.62 ruled the roost in Afghanistan where engagements were longer range affairs. In Iraq, the 5.56 worked fine with the 77 grain SMK's.

No Marine, soldier or Sailor would turn down a round that gave him more lethality but there are billions of rounds of 5.56 stockpiled so changing calibers would be a logistical nightmare.

The little 6.5 Grendel would be a wicked cartridge for a battle rifle moving 100 grain bullets out faster than the 5.56 77 grain combo, but again, by and large the rifle wasn't our limiting factor in killing the enemy. At least not from where I stood.
 
Scotty - thank you for jumping in. My military service is slipping farther and farther into the past.

But I do remember 100%, and I mean that, reliability with the M-16A2. And remarkable accuracy with our service ammo, even at 500 yards.

As a law enforcement firearms instructor, I paved the way locally for the AR-15 platform to be adopted, first with military surplus M-16's, later with really nice semi and full-auto variants. SWAT got the cool 10.5" full auto versions. :grin: Patrol Officers got the 16" semi-auto AR's.

They've been trouble-free for thousands of rounds, and effective as all get out when needed.

Guy
 
I think the 5.56 cartridge with increased BC bullets is here to stay in the free world. Just too much of a logistical nightmare to switch calibers, despite the potential of 6-6.5mm cartridges. As for the platforms, recently many manufacturers have come out with designs which offer little improvement over the stoner system AR type platform.

With the product improvement that has occurred with ammunition, rifling twist, barrels, optics and reliability, this is not your Grandpa's M16, not by a long shot (pun intended). Other than the barrel length, a modern m4 carbine is more akin to something you'd see on the national match course than what our troops carried through the 1980s. The SDMR variants are basically match rifles.

Everybody keeps wanting to resurrect the M14. It was an improvement over the M1Garand, but became permanently obsolete the moment the AR became a modular platform firing a high BC bullet, seeing a short resurgence in the SDMR role due to the long engagement ranges encountered in recent conflicts. It is difficult to service, expensive to produce, difficult to mount optics on, and not very adaptable to multiple roles. The modular rifle is here to stay. Perhaps a new rifle will come out, but it will likely fire a 5.56 round with a 70-80 grain projectile and I believe it will be developed independently by a civilian manufacturer and catch the attention of the military if it offers a significant improvement in cost, reliability or performance over the various AR platforms currently issued.
 
I don't know how to post the link here, but take a look at Randy Wakeman article.
U.S. Army,s M4, M16 A National Disgrace ?
It has a lot of information on how it has performed in combat.
Maybe one of you here can post the link here.
If you read it and the links it connects you to other articles and read them you may come to a different opinion on the M16 & M4.
As far as cost you can name any number of U.S. Military weapons programs that cost far more, I just think it's time for a change. That's my two cents on the M16.
Please read then tell me what you think. Good Shooting
 
Sounds pretty interesting. I'll agree with Guy. Our M4's and variants worked very well when they were maintained decently. No rifle is going to be 100% in the dust and constant dirt we came across daily. As for the effectiveness of the round, I'm all for a larger one. Especially one with some additional reach.
 
Biggest 'rifle" I used in '72 was the M110 8" in Direct Fire mode, ha. It was slow to reload ( about 2.5 minutes), took a crew to do that, but man, what it could do "way out there" (which is where I prefer the bad Guys to be! ha) My Marine SIL had no issues with his M4 and the 77gr ammo. However, I'm sure he could do well with about anything...those Devil Dogs just need to be "let loose".
 
I think we have a replacement in the FN SCAR-H. Some SF units already use it like Scotty said. It comes down to if the Pentagon and bean counters want to go back to the 7.62.
 
Woodycreek":3jxlip64 said:
I think we have a replacement in the FN SCAR-H. Some SF units already use it like Scotty said. It comes down to if the Pentagon and bean counters want to go back to the 7.62.
I have always liked FN products and from the looks of this one it's the one rifle I would want to carry into battle if I was put into that situation. I loved my M14 and the 7.62 round for it's accuracy and ability to engage targets at long range accurately and this looks like a winner.
 
The M4 is incredibly underrated. Unless you're fighting in mountains with lots of dead space, the 5.56 NATO is quite capable.

The mean rounds between stoppages and mean rounds between failure in the last individual carbine competition indicated that none of the rifles tested would outperform the M4 enough to justify the cost of switching.

It would be silly to switch to the M14. Too heavy, a pain to clean, heavy mags and ammo to accompany that heavy rifle. It's also way too long, considering even the Army's light infantry units do a significant amount of mounted operations.

The SCAR-H is a great rifle, but it's not the end all be all of battle rifles. The M4 isn't either. That's why we have light and heavy machine guns, mortars, artillery and armor to help riflemen put rounds into bad guys faces. I don't think switching rifles is going to increase lethality and downrange effects. Instead, we could spend that money on brigade/regiment level training with much greater effects.
 
Back
Top