Guns Like firearms themselves, there's a wide variety of opinions on what's the best gun.

does the military need a new service rifle

Old 11-18-2006, 07:39 AM
  #21  
Nontypical Buck
 
elgallo114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sierra Nevadas., Ca
Posts: 1,050
Default RE: does the military need a new service rifle

ORIGINAL: Red Lion



This is the wave of the future in the carbine varient.
There's a good article at military.com about this weapon. It's already been rejected. Google it and you'll find several other articles saying at's a good weapon, but didn't perform to military standards.

As for the .243 overheating barrels, I'm not sure that would happen. With the types of barrels out there now, it's not such an issue. Look at the new M60E4. It can fire 800 rounds straight without stopping and no overheating. Only the Navy is using the M60 now, but this type of new barrel is being looked at as being the standard for any new rifles developed.
elgallo114 is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 09:28 AM
  #22  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: OKC Ok. USA
Posts: 501
Default RE: does the military need a new service rifle

There is a need for the military to do something. The newer short barreled weapons takes a round that was just ok at best to the realm of being a poor performer.
I've talked to people who have the experience and since Somolia there has been grumbling of the newer rifles performance. IMHO the M-16 was and still is a far from a great combat weapon. The 6.5 swede or something in that vein would be the proper choice for a new round IMHO.
Ruddyduck is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 08:29 PM
  #23  
Giant Nontypical
 
JagMagMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Port Neches, Texas
Posts: 5,514
Default RE: does the military need a new service rifle

I doubt that the 5.56 M-16 will be going away anytime soon! As someone said, the idea in combat is to throw lots of lead, fast! I would think that in some specialized units, we will see new weapons, but again, in combat the M-16 and 5.56 works! If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Yes, heavier clibers do a better job killing, but with the risk of being un-PC, killing is not always the always best. Wounded soldiers require more man-power and resourses than dead folks do. You also don't need sniper accuracy in field combat, and you can probably carry 3 times the ammo for a 5.56 than you can for an '08 or an Aught-6.
Throughout history, the guys with the fastest weapons are ussually the winners.
Now, for handgun CQC they need to go back to more stopping power of the old .45 ACP.
JagMagMan is offline  
Old 11-19-2006, 02:43 AM
  #24  
Nontypical Buck
 
HighDesertWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: A flat lander lost in the mountains of Northern,AZ
Posts: 3,171
Default RE: does the military need a new service rifle

ORIGINAL: JagMagMan

I doubt that the 5.56 M-16 will be going away anytime soon! As someone said, the idea in combat is to throw lots of lead, fast! I would think that in some specialized units, we will see new weapons, but again, in combat the M-16 and 5.56 works! If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Yes, heavier clibers do a better job killing, but with the risk of being un-PC, killing is not always the always best. Wounded soldiers require more man-power and resourses than dead folks do. You also don't need sniper accuracy in field combat, and you can probably carry 3 times the ammo for a 5.56 than you can for an '08 or an Aught-6.
Throughout history, the guys with the fastest weapons are ussually the winners.
Now, for handgun CQC they need to go back to more stopping power of the old .45 ACP.
my father who is a vietnam combat veteran and I were discussing this earlier today. he said though he would personally prefer to have his M-14 he explained asfar as the 5.56mm is concerned it is really the best to keep massive amounts of lead in the air becuase a typical infantryman can carry twice as many rounds then that of 7.62 sand because most of your combat situations really just amount to suppresive fire where pin point accuracy just isnt required. he also said if any of your rounds actually hit a person its actually better to wound the enemy where a dead soldier is just left to lay till the fire fight is over but if someone is wounded then it actually takes the person wounded out of the fight plus whoever it takes to tend to the wounded person. In my fathers opinion as a basic infantry rifle he says the M-16 sucks but there really isnt anything wrong with the 5.56. he says there might be a need for better suited calibers for specific types of combat like in urban situations a shotgun or a pistol caliber firing sub machine gun would be best.
HighDesertWolf is offline  
Old 11-19-2006, 06:26 PM
  #25  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: MN USA
Posts: 1,392
Default RE: does the military need a new service rifle

I think that the standard M-16 .223, which was designed for and introduced in the early 60's for widespread military use has outlived it's usefulness. It was from the start not a weapon that functioned well when it got dirty, cold or wet. They (Colt) made some minor modifications to try to correct some of these short comings.
When I used one in the Army in the early 70's I never was impressed with a weapon that you have to have a seating and separate cocking handle (in the back). It was a pretty accurate rifle for a peep sight though. It wasn't hard to consistently hit targets out to 300+ yards.

I think there are replacement auto/semi-auto weapons that are being developed similar to an Israeli rifle that moves the action back further into the stock, shorting the overall weapon, while retaining approx. the same length barrel.

This makes it easier to move and fire quickly. I can't say whether it's gas operated (less desirable) or inertia (like Benelli's) shotguns (more reliable). But I was impressed by the demonstration on "The Military Channel" in the last 6 months. I have no idea when such a weapon is scheduled to start replacing the M-16. I would imagine that it would be a phased replacement to get full use out of millions of existing M-16 and warehouses full of ammo. Unless the later is the same.
MinnFinn is offline  
Old 11-19-2006, 09:18 PM
  #26  
Nontypical Buck
 
Bulzeye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Too close to Chicago
Posts: 3,337
Default RE: does the military need a new service rifle

It seems to me that Chuck's article did indeedmake the case for his .243 choice in regards to external ballistics, (meaning how the thing flies between the muzzle and the point of impact), as well as retained energy downrange. More energy further out there is a good thing, and shooting flat, and being less affected by wind are also good. However...

I would like to see a similar comparison in the terminal ballistics (both the shock effect and permanentdamage it does when it strikes flesh)of the 5.56, .243, .308, 6.8, and a few others that have been suggested as possible replacements. The magic bullet wouldhaveto be accurate and effectiveat extended ranges from standard issue long barrelled rifles, while still being effective from short barrelled carbine length guns.

I think money would be better spent buying ACOGs for every soldier
Amen. Iron sights belong on handguns and other PDW's.
No batteries, has fiber, tritium, and with the chevron reticule it can be plenty accurate withoutcumbersome magnification.

Definitely need a better sidearm cartridge than a 9mm, especially if we are to continue being restricted to ball ammo. When your bullet can't expand, it better be big to start with.
Bulzeye is offline  
Old 11-19-2006, 09:23 PM
  #27  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NW Arkansas
Posts: 1,673
Default RE: does the military need a new service rifle

ORIGINAL: Bulzeye

It seems to me that Chuck's article did indeedmake the case for his .243 choice in regards to external ballistics, (meaning how the thing flies between the muzzle and the point of impact), as well as retained energy downrange. More energy further out there is a good thing, and shooting flat, and being less affected by wind are also good. However...

I would like to see a similar comparison in the terminal ballistics (both the shock effect and permanentdamage it does when it strikes flesh)of the 5.56, .243, .308, 6.8, and a few others that have been suggested as possible replacements. The magic bullet wouldhaveto be accurate and effectiveat extended ranges from standard issue long barrelled rifles, while still being effective from short barrelled carbine length guns.

I think money would be better spent buying ACOGs for every soldier
Amen. Iron sights belong on handguns and other PDW's.
No batteries, has fiber, tritium, and with the chevron reticule it can be plenty accurate withoutcumbersome magnification.

Definitely need a better sidearm cartridge than a 9mm, especially if we are to continue being restricted to ball ammo. When your bullet can't expand, it better be big to start with.
I agree about the handgun issue,I think the military should go back to the ole' .45 ACP as the issue pistol.
Chantecler111 is offline  
Old 11-20-2006, 01:05 AM
  #28  
Nontypical Buck
 
HighDesertWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: A flat lander lost in the mountains of Northern,AZ
Posts: 3,171
Default RE: does the military need a new service rifle

ORIGINAL: Chantecler111

ORIGINAL: Bulzeye

It seems to me that Chuck's article did indeedmake the case for his .243 choice in regards to external ballistics, (meaning how the thing flies between the muzzle and the point of impact), as well as retained energy downrange. More energy further out there is a good thing, and shooting flat, and being less affected by wind are also good. However...

I would like to see a similar comparison in the terminal ballistics (both the shock effect and permanentdamage it does when it strikes flesh)of the 5.56, .243, .308, 6.8, and a few others that have been suggested as possible replacements. The magic bullet wouldhaveto be accurate and effectiveat extended ranges from standard issue long barrelled rifles, while still being effective from short barrelled carbine length guns.

I think money would be better spent buying ACOGs for every soldier
Amen. Iron sights belong on handguns and other PDW's.
No batteries, has fiber, tritium, and with the chevron reticule it can be plenty accurate withoutcumbersome magnification.

Definitely need a better sidearm cartridge than a 9mm, especially if we are to continue being restricted to ball ammo. When your bullet can't expand, it better be big to start with.
I agree about the handgun issue,I think the military should go back to the ole' .45 ACP as the issue pistol.
in some cases certain units do have 45's, and the military is working on getting 45's into more hands on the front lines since they are in the process of trials right now as soon as they do decide on what manufacturer to go with then you will see 45's phasing back in but I think it will be awhile atleast 4 or 5 years before the M92's are completely phased out.
HighDesertWolf is offline  
Old 11-20-2006, 09:01 AM
  #29  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location:
Posts: 4,553
Default RE: does the military need a new service rifle

ORIGINAL: HighDesertWolf

ORIGINAL: Red Lion

When it comes to shooting humans it would be a big step up from the .223.
No not really..... .223 = 5.56mm a 243 = 6mm, you do the math... with fmj ammo the 243 isnt gonna leave any bigger of a hole then a 223. besides the 5.56mm is known to tumble upon impact with flesh and bone I believe with the higher velocity and heavier bullet of the 243 makes for a much more stable projectile and it would just pass through causing far less tissue damage then what the 5.56mm is known to do.

something else to consider is with a service rifle the idea is to keep the lead flying. a 243 would over heat a barrel way to fast in a fire fight causing severe damage to the weapons barrel. I guarentee our armed forces really dont want to have to change the barrels of there service weapons after every fire fight.

IMO there is really nothing wrong with the 5.56mm. instead of worrying about the caliber our military should worry more about the platform it is fired from.
I do not disagree with you that the .243 is not a large caliber. You must have missed the more important piece of my statements, that the rifle would be used by all in the military, a general issue to soldiers, sailors, etc...that would be used by men and women of many different jobs. The actual number of combat arms personal is actually very small compared to all the others around and supporting. I for one know that most soldiers in the Amry are not very good marksmen and would not have the time/resources to get proficient/comfortable with a larger caliber rifle.A .243/6mm would be a fine general issue caliber, andwould have nothing, caliber wise with barrel over heating versus any other caliber.Remember the M-16 has not had auto fire for a number of years, semi-auto and 3 round burst (3 round burst is garbage). As far as changing out barrels, it is comon place when shooting a crew serve weapon, like an m249, m2, etc...due to the barrel overheating, from sustained rapid fire.
You will always need other tools in the tool box for certain MOS/jobs and situations, so other rifles would be appropriate for more specialized soldiers.
Red Lion is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 08:47 AM
  #30  
Nontypical Buck
 
Sniper151's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cornwall, Pa.
Posts: 1,720
Default RE: does the military need a new service rifle

Amilitary round is to kill the emeny, not paper and I'll match my M1 A1 against any trick .223.
Sniper151 is offline  

Quick Reply: does the military need a new service rifle


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.