A gooood replacement for M-16 Rifle...

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
White Collar Welfare

Can you explain this comment some more?

[wulfie]

Originally posted by tikky
AK's have been around for 57 years and its is as reliable as a Japanese car.  Soak an AK-47 on salt water or sand and it still works!

It's also heavy, about as well balanced as a fat drunk chick on iceskates, and less accurate than my d*ck past 150 meters.

The Czechs have a long history of being awesome gun makers - and even they couldn't make the thing accurate (which makes sense - the reason it is so damn reliable after exposure to sand, dirt, whatever is that there is enough room inside the thing to hide Funked and 2 of his hos, and the action would still cycle clean).

[lasersailor184]

The M-16 has been the longest used US service rifle. Maybe there is a reason for that?

If you ever have studied the M16, you would know that it's not because of it's reliability or accuraccy.  There has to be another reason.

[101ABN]

funny thing here is that everyone states how the M16 is unreliable and not accurate... ive never had a problem with any M16/M4 that ive been issued... and for accuracy, i can plink 300m targets with ease (foxhole, prone position, standing, sitting..)  M16s can be a handful if you dont take care of it while in the field.. for example, if you use CLP (cleaning lube) in the desert enviroments like Iraq and Afghanistan you will get sand buildup on the bolt carrier.. and another trouble area is the buffer well in the stock, you have to keep that area cleaned and dry (alot of soldiers overlook that area).

design a way to beat the IEDs and now your talking..

[Masherbrum]

Actually, when my shooting buddy went into the National Guard as an E-5 his platoon went to Evjemoen (sp?) for a NATO training exercise.  He said the best rifle he has EVER fired was the Finnish AK-47 firing LaPua ammo.   You guys can rip on it all you want, because it's stupid to try and do so.

I love my HK USP 45 w/ 12 round mags.

[AquaShrimp]

Looks like we are running into the same type of comparisons that WW2 pilots made.  Everyone has anecdotal evidence showing that one type of weapon is better than the other.  

The M-16 is one of the most accurate assault rifles made.  I have seen charts listing the mil accuracy compared against other rifles.  Its been a long time, but if I remember correctly, M-16s fresh from the factory shot 4-5 mils, while other rifles like the Styr Aug shot around 10 mils.

Using the proper ammunition and full length barrels, the 5.56mm round does produce massive wounds against unprotected bodies.  As we all know, when an assault rifle round enters the body, it flips 180 degrees and travels backwards.  This is because the bullets center of mass is shifted rearward due to the aerodynamic shape of the bullet.  An AK-47 round for example, enters the body, travels a short distance, flips 180 degrees, then exits the body.  A 5.56mm round enters the body, begins to flip, but breaks up into several pieces, all causing substantial damage.

But I agree, with our army being made up of citizen-soldier teenagers, we need a reliable rifle that is more suited for urban combat.  The M-16 failed the soldiers of Jessica Lyndes convoy.  I certainly don't believe that they weren't cleaning their rifles either.  Who goes to war and neglects their rifle within the first few weeks?

Seems like most people agree 6.8mm would be a good round.  But how about a rifle that will fire with sand and grit?  It wouldn't need to do that many times, just enough to get people out of an emergency.

[Edbert1]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You really have turned whacko leftist - now your're bashing Isreal and essentialy comparing them to Nazis.  WTF is up with you Mike?

Ya know...I wasn't going to say anything...but now that the subject has been broached...I'd like to know too...Funked has been in a funky mood for a while now...it seems to me.

Regarding the subject of this thread...

There have been about a bazillion designs since Eugene Stoner's original AR design came out that have improvements. Some of those new designs were his. The AR has come a long LONG way since the '50s too. I am the proud owner of an "M4-gery", it is nearly flawless in design. Very few improvements can be made that don't also have drawbacks. All aspects of weapon design are compromises anyhow, sacrifice weight for ruggedness, or durability for accuracy, etc. One of the most common complaints about the design is the "direct gas" geting into the action rather than being filtered somewhat by a piston. Of course this decreases the reciprocating assembly drastically, thereby reducing felt-recoil and improving accuracy. The only real operational problem compared to some competitors is the need to clean the weapon every thousand rounds or so (some designs can go much longer than that reliably), but most active duty guys are trained to clean them far more often than that.

The biggest problem in my opinion with the M16/M4's currently being used is the ballistics of the 5.56. But to switch over the 6.8, for example, would cost far more than it is worth. It might not be a nice thing to consider but we have NEVER issued the best possible weapon (price being no object) to our run-of-the-mill units, it always comes down to what the armed services can afford, like it or not.

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Can you explain this comment some more?

Pork Barrel

[Toad]

Originally posted by Edbert1
But to switch over the 6.8, for example, would cost far more than it is worth.  

If I read the article I linked correctly, they said the changeover only required a new barrel and possibly a stronger spring in the magazines.

[wulfie]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Who goes to war and neglects their rifle within the first few weeks?

Supply types who have never been in an infantry unit. The guy who fought to the death and really made the Iraqis pay came from an infantry unit origionally. So did the other soldier in the engagement who won the SS. Non-combat arms people, out of their element, do stupid stuff all the time.

[/B]But how about a rifle that will fire with sand and grit?[/B]

The tighter the weapon is built, the more accurate it is. The trick is to keep the junk from ever getting in the works, which is what they are talking about with the HK -4s/16s.

The G36 is an awesome weapon. Accurate, great balance, very easily controlled recoil in full auto, very resistant to dirt/sand/dust. I'd still take a G36 over the HK -4/-16.

[wulfie]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I have heard directly from members of one large east coast SWAT team that has dumped their HK G36 (because they lost zero due to heating of the composite parts) in favor of the new HK 416.

Sorry but I don't buy it. There has to be other reasons. I've worked with Germans and Brits in very, very hot environments (hotter than you are going to find anywhere in the U.S.) who were packing G36s and never heard of something like this happening.

And if they lost zero we would have heard about it - no doubt about it.

My first *guess* would be that it was probably the 'import optics' issue with the G36. The German and some non-German military issue guns have the top-of-the line optics built into the gun. The import version, which is what U.S. LE uses, does not. With the new HK weapons, the SWAT guys can easily have top-of-the line optics.

[wulfie]

Originally posted by Toad
If I read the article I linked correctly, they said the changeover only required a new barrel and possibly a stronger spring in the magazines.

New barrel/upper. And the 6.8 hits hard. The 5.56 is no slouch (many guys who complain of stopping power are *****ing when they wing a guy in the elbow at 300m at the corner of a building, and the guy staggers away - not a reasonable ***** IMHO - true, blowing his arm off with an M14 would be nice, but that doesn't mean the 5.56 is 'too weak'), but there is a noticable difference.

[wulfie]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
The M-16 is one of the most accurate assault rifles made.  I have seen charts listing the mil accuracy compared against other rifles.  Its been a long time, but if I remember correctly, M-16s fresh from the factory shot 4-5 mils, while other rifles like the Styr Aug shot around 10 mils.

That is for sure. The -4 and -16 (within their effective ranges according to the barrel used) are 'tack drivers'. And you can rapid fire them and keep the rounds on target in a way that you could never manage with an AK-47 (now the -74 is a different story).

A trained shooter could put 6, 8 rounds into the torso of an enemy at 200 meters with a -16 very, very quickly. He could probably do the same with an AK-47 but only at much shorter ranges.

Now extrapolate that into a squad vs. squad engagement. Your 5.56 armed guys are going to put down a much greater volume of fire, with a great deal more accuracy. Just talking about the rifles of course, but it does make a difference.

[Toad]

Originally posted by wulfie
New barrel/upper.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same 6.8. The 6.8 ARC is still a relatively unknown wildcat idea. I don't know if anyone has even built one as yet. Seems like it might be a cheap way to get some more smack out of the .223 guns.

The one mentioned in the article that would only require a new barrel:
 

6.8mm in a .223 case will not equal the 6.8mm SPC, but will still out perform any assault rifle round in current use, and the only modification needed is a new barrel.

Not a quantum leap but a nice improvement in energy for just a new barrel and necked-up ammunition.

Trajectory is pretty close too out to 300 yards.

M193  5.56 (55gr)  MV 3200  ME 1250   300yd V/E  2143/561
6.8 ARC (125 gr)    MV 2438  ME  1649  300 yd V/E  1818/971

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Toad
I'm not sure we're talking about the same 6.8. The 6.8 ARC is still a relatively unknown wildcat idea. I don't know if anyone has even built one as yet. Seems like it might be a cheap way to get some more smack out of the .223 guns.

I was able to google Barrett M468 which uses 6.8mm ARC: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-13416.html

Oh.. I probably shouldn't use 'to google' because it could violate Google's trademark in a way they don't wish it to be used. Shame on me.


(why does it appear like a 3D model...)