Author Topic: A gooood replacement for M-16 Rifle... (Read 2012 times)

DiabloTX · « **Reply #30 on:** August 13, 2006, 05:01:46 AM »

"Would you like to know more?"

Nilsen · « **Reply #31 on:** August 13, 2006, 05:16:04 AM »

They have planned to replace all our AG3 rifles to get with the "5.56" programme, but the army doesnt like that. Now they are upgrading them with new addons, sights, nightsights, gadgets and barrels and they will remain in service for many more years.. Special forces and some ranger units have used the Dieamaco C8 and some will get the G36... mostly to have easyer access to ammo on international deployments.

I liked my AG3.. was acurate even with iron sights and you could not get it to jam in cold or dust. The range and penetrating power was good too. I bet they will be fun with the new addons and gadgets

~Caligula~ · « **Reply #32 on:** August 13, 2006, 06:42:10 AM »

i haven`t seen any soldier carry this weapon. all i ever see is the m16 and the tankers have the galil.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #33 on:** August 13, 2006, 08:06:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by vorticon
you missed his point, germany wouldnt need to sue, just steal there stuff, and refuse to sell them any more new technology...

That... Doesn't make any sense at all...

Toad · « **Reply #34 on:** August 13, 2006, 09:25:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shuckins
Yeah...but for cost effectiveness and lethality nothing matches a good explosives belt.

Those crazy Scotsmen! They're always up to something!

bj229r · « **Reply #35 on:** August 13, 2006, 09:52:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by J_A_B
It'd be a waste of money to switch from one lousy 5.56mm weapon to another.

J_A_B

CC that, it's a neat concept..from my understanding the barrel on that thing is about same length as M16---does anyone make something of that ilk in a 7.62x39?

Toad · « **Reply #36 on:** August 13, 2006, 10:23:22 AM »

7.62x39 isn't a real strong cartridge either.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/243_service_rifle.htm

Quote

Compared to its main competition in the infantry rifle cartridge sweepstakes, the 7.62x39 Soviet, the 5.56mm NATO cartridge has much higher velocity (for flatter trajectory), and slightly more energy downrange.

Neither actually has much punch at medium to long range: at 200 yards they have 860-875 ft. lbs. of energy, and at 300 yards they are down to only 655-710 ft. lbs. (The velocity, energy, trajectory, and wind drift figures quoted in this article are taken from the 1998 Federal, Remington, and Winchester ammunition catalogs.)

When you consider that 900 ft. lbs. of remaining bullet energy is generally considered the minimum for reliably killing an inoffensive deer, these numbers are not impressive. For what it's worth, at each range the slightly higher figure belongs to the 5.56mm.

For some outside the box ideas, check this out.

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/bullet.html

Quote

6.86mm ARC/ .270 ARC

The .270 ARC therefore fulfils the criteria:-

A round that produces greater and more consistent terminal effects.

A round that achieves the above while still maintaining practical exterior ballistics.

A round that can be fired existing weapons without the weapon needing extensive modifications.

Bottom line is the .270/6.86mm ARC shoots flat to 300yds and would have better terminal effects than any assault rifle cartridge in service.

Dago · « **Reply #37 on:** August 13, 2006, 10:45:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by bj229r
CC that, it's a neat concept..from my understanding the barrel on that thing is about same length as M16---does anyone make something of that ilk in a 7.62x39?

Yeah, it's called the AK-47.

So, you advocate switching to a differant rifle with the same barrel length? I am still curious why you think the Tavor should replace the M16, what do you think would be better, when barrel length, caliber are the same, and in the M16 we have a proven weapon produced by Americans, with adapability to mission needs, strong support in terms of parts, trained armorers and ease of use? It is a rifle that is proven accurate, dependable, lightweight. It is easy to fire, can be had in semi- or three round burst mode, or a model offering full automatic and semi-automatic.

What exactly is the gain?

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #38 on:** August 13, 2006, 11:10:08 AM »

The Koreans have one too. Decent rifle, they were easy enough to get for cheap just a few years ago, seem to have dried up now. The Daewoo K1/K2 is a Korean copy of the M16, even uses M16 magazines and the internals are somewhat similar. No real size or weight savings, but it is a very rugged design. They also build them in 7.62x39 configuration.

Personally I dont see much advantage in any of them over the M4, not enough to advocate the expense and trouble necessary to switch. I like the G36, but even that isnt really a replacement.

Fishu · « **Reply #39 on:** August 13, 2006, 11:27:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dago
So, you advocate switching to a differant rifle with the same barrel length? I am still curious why you think the Tavor should replace the M16, what do you think would be better, when barrel length, caliber are the same, and in the M16 we have a proven weapon produced by Americans, with adapability to mission needs, strong support in terms of parts, trained armorers and ease of use? It is a rifle that is proven accurate, dependable, lightweight. It is easy to fire, can be had in semi- or three round burst mode, or a model offering full automatic and semi-automatic.

What exactly is the gain?

I believe the reliability of Tavor is far ahead of the M16s. Tavor could be also easier to handle with its bull pup design and made more compact due to the barrel being further back. Israelis doesn't quite appreciated the M16s due to unreliability and fatigue - Many of the M16s sent to Israel are US military surplus. Israel also wants to be self sufficient in arming itself, which is clearly shown with the development of Merkava tanks.

It is also weird of you to ask what's the point, when every bigger NATO country has their own rifle design! Brits got L85, Germans got G36 (a version of it is soon to be in use by the US military too), French got FAMAS, Belgium got FN FNC, Italy got Beretta AR70/90...
Does any NATO country besides US use M16?

Dago · « **Reply #40 on:** August 13, 2006, 11:49:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu
I believe the reliability of Tavor is far ahead of the M16s. Tavor could be also easier to handle with its bull pup design and made more compact due to the barrel being further back.

You make good points.

Quote

Israelis doesn't quite appreciated the M16s due to unreliability and fatigue - Many of the M16s sent to Israel are US military surplus. Israel also wants to be self sufficient in arming itself, which is clearly shown with the development of Merkava tanks.

Understandable, nobody would want to be armed with worn out weapons. I dont blame Israel for wanting to develop and producing their own weapons, but I question why the guy who started this thread thought the US should not want to do the same.

Quote

It is also weird of you to ask what's the point, when every bigger NATO country has their own rifle design! Brits got L85, Germans got G36 (a version of it is soon to be in use by the US military too), French got FAMAS, Belgium got FN FNC, Italy got Beretta AR70/90...

Does any NATO country besides US use M16?

According to some quick research, including the Colt website:

Quote

Colt weapon systems are also used in fifteen (15) NATO countries and more than 80 other countries worldwide. More than 8,000,000 units have been produced so far of which more than 90% remain in service. This represents more than 90% of all weapons produced in 5.56mm.

Exactly, so why should the US switch to the Tavor?

J_A_B · « **Reply #41 on:** August 13, 2006, 12:47:38 PM »

The Barrett M468 uses the .270 (6.8mm) round that Toad discussed above. It seems like a useful successor to the M-16 family, as the newer weapon is compatible with most of the M-16's accessories. Of course, it's questionable as to whether the Army will ever be willing to switch away from the lousy 5.56mm round that they so stubbornly insist on using.

J_A_B

bj229r · « **Reply #42 on:** August 13, 2006, 12:58:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dago
Yeah, it's called the AK-47.

So, you advocate switching to a differant rifle with the same barrel length? I am still curious why you think the Tavor should replace the M16, what do you think would be better, when barrel length, caliber are the same, and in the M16 we have a proven weapon produced by Americans, with adapability to mission needs, strong support in terms of parts, trained armorers and ease of use? It is a rifle that is proven accurate, dependable, lightweight. It is easy to fire, can be had in semi- or three round burst mode, or a model offering full automatic and semi-automatic.

What exactly is the gain?

Umm I THINK i said that it was a neat concept, and that the barrel was similar in length to the M-16-- I like gadgets...the barrel contained inside the weapon is a NEAT idea..no idea how effective it is, and I know a LOT of guys have complained that the 5.56 round is lacking in many things.

BGBMAW · « **Reply #43 on:** August 13, 2006, 01:33:26 PM »

7.62 NATO...now thats a round you can love

Boroda · « **Reply #44 on:** August 13, 2006, 01:43:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ~Caligula~
i haven`t seen any soldier carry this weapon. all i ever see is the m16 and the tankers have the galil.

As our lector said on small-arms course - "Only differences between Israely assault rifle Galil and Kalashnikov's automat are the shape of forestock and a bottle-opener in a butt".