US Military to replace the AR/M-16???
- Thread starter Scalloper
- Start date
jarheadhunter
New member
Yes it was the M4 now they are going to change from that as well. Don't say what it is, but they are changing it.
http://www.newser.com/story/111109/army-sets-sights-on-new-rifle.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704124504576118550237336920.html
http://www.newser.com/story/111109/army-sets-sights-on-new-rifle.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704124504576118550237336920.html
Last edited:
204 AR
Well-known member
A full time soldier who's been in Afganistan told me last fall that they are going back to the 7.62. Sounded unlikely to me, but who's to say.
I know I love the platform as is, but I've never had my life depend on it, so I'll leave that discussion/decision to our heroes that do depend on it.
I know I love the platform as is, but I've never had my life depend on it, so I'll leave that discussion/decision to our heroes that do depend on it.
joshua79109
New member
Not sure if we will actually see a big change or not. Lot's of people with lots of theories, but until they are carrying them....
A lot of the guys in A-stan are using a 7.62X51 for the longer distances they find themselves fighting. It has long been well known that many prefer the 7.62 for barrier penetration. There are plenty who still like the 5.56X45 as well - many war-fighters have seen it do a fine job and you can carry a lot more 5.56 per pound. So a lot of it is mission driven. One of my good friends is there and he still prefers the 5.56. He is a contractor now (was military) so he can get what he wants, but he does say that many of them over there are using a 7.62.
A very small portion of our military is already using a SCAR by FNH. They have actually made it all the way through the process and they are buying some of them in 7.62 and they have the ability to buy them in 5.56 but the last (I saw) they were only buying the 7.62 for now as they have limited funds and have the ability to continue to use the M4 at no additional cost since it is what is already issued (they don't have to buy it with their funds).
I have a SCAR in 5.56 and will more than likely have one in 7.62 at some point. Mine has proven to be an excellent firearm. If the 7.62 version proves to be at least moa (hopefully better like mine in 5.56) it will be a top seller in my opinion - and might be even if it's only 2moa capable. So far the reports look good for the 7.62 to be better than moa.
They will start more trials soon and I'll be excited to see the outcome of those trials. Even if the military doesn't pick up a new firearm it's nice to have their tests to help us pick what we want (in my opinion)
Oh and just to clarify, I'm a huge fan (I have a good number) of the AR platform and I used one when it counted while serving. I have no issue with the military moving from that platform if it's good for our troops though.
There is also a lot of talk of moving from 5.56 to some other intermediate round like the 6.8 (etc...). I'm also anxious to see if anything comes of that. I will be surprised if we see a change any time soon. I believe we will see a total firearm change when we see a caliber change. Some of our troops are currently using a better bullet in 5.56 and that has made a good difference in terminal ballistics.
But really, until you see them carrying a new caliber or firearm (or both) remember that you are talking about politics for the most part.
A lot of the guys in A-stan are using a 7.62X51 for the longer distances they find themselves fighting. It has long been well known that many prefer the 7.62 for barrier penetration. There are plenty who still like the 5.56X45 as well - many war-fighters have seen it do a fine job and you can carry a lot more 5.56 per pound. So a lot of it is mission driven. One of my good friends is there and he still prefers the 5.56. He is a contractor now (was military) so he can get what he wants, but he does say that many of them over there are using a 7.62.
A very small portion of our military is already using a SCAR by FNH. They have actually made it all the way through the process and they are buying some of them in 7.62 and they have the ability to buy them in 5.56 but the last (I saw) they were only buying the 7.62 for now as they have limited funds and have the ability to continue to use the M4 at no additional cost since it is what is already issued (they don't have to buy it with their funds).
I have a SCAR in 5.56 and will more than likely have one in 7.62 at some point. Mine has proven to be an excellent firearm. If the 7.62 version proves to be at least moa (hopefully better like mine in 5.56) it will be a top seller in my opinion - and might be even if it's only 2moa capable. So far the reports look good for the 7.62 to be better than moa.
They will start more trials soon and I'll be excited to see the outcome of those trials. Even if the military doesn't pick up a new firearm it's nice to have their tests to help us pick what we want (in my opinion)
Oh and just to clarify, I'm a huge fan (I have a good number) of the AR platform and I used one when it counted while serving. I have no issue with the military moving from that platform if it's good for our troops though.
There is also a lot of talk of moving from 5.56 to some other intermediate round like the 6.8 (etc...). I'm also anxious to see if anything comes of that. I will be surprised if we see a change any time soon. I believe we will see a total firearm change when we see a caliber change. Some of our troops are currently using a better bullet in 5.56 and that has made a good difference in terminal ballistics.
But really, until you see them carrying a new caliber or firearm (or both) remember that you are talking about politics for the most part.
The 7.62X51 NATO via the M14 has a lot of merit, but I wonder how many Infantry units are willing to put-up with the extra weight of the rifle and ammo even the scout versions...Then of course there is the added recoil of the round...
I have a National Match M14/M1A1 and love It.
I have a National Match M14/M1A1 and love It.
3807patriot
New member
Perhaps just a caliber upgrade like 6mm or 6.5
Jayhawker27
New member
When you consider the REAL cost of replacing/modifying/upgrading existing weapons platforms, and replacing the billions of rounds of ammunition already on hand and assuming the state of our economy, I don't believe anything substantial is going to happen soon.
blueline1911
New member
Jayhawker has it right. The latge scale replacement of the M16 design would be logistically, financially and politically impractical. With the hundreds of thousands already in circulation, at best you might see a cartridge change/ addition.
The sniper section in my unit just got a shipment of the SR25's manufactured by Knight's a year and a half ago prior to deployment. "Old" M14's are being put back in service for DM use, and a buddy of mine in 5th Group said they have access to some 6.8's, (and pretty much whatever else they want) but the above examples are for specialized applications. Then again there are still some units toting M16A2's.
The sniper section in my unit just got a shipment of the SR25's manufactured by Knight's a year and a half ago prior to deployment. "Old" M14's are being put back in service for DM use, and a buddy of mine in 5th Group said they have access to some 6.8's, (and pretty much whatever else they want) but the above examples are for specialized applications. Then again there are still some units toting M16A2's.
Joshua,
Great post.Its time they did the testing and legwork at least to improve the basic weapon.There is ALWAYS improvement out there and cost should obviously be a factor but NOT the controlling one.
For a great read on how the Russki's shaped the weapon world,and actually the political world as well, with the AK(and indirectly created the ARs)find a copy of the Pullitzer Prize winning book titled 'The Gun' by C.J. Chivers.
IMO we should be leading,not following.Our service people deserve it.
Great post.Its time they did the testing and legwork at least to improve the basic weapon.There is ALWAYS improvement out there and cost should obviously be a factor but NOT the controlling one.
For a great read on how the Russki's shaped the weapon world,and actually the political world as well, with the AK(and indirectly created the ARs)find a copy of the Pullitzer Prize winning book titled 'The Gun' by C.J. Chivers.
IMO we should be leading,not following.Our service people deserve it.
Last edited:
ExpertMarksman
New member
If you can get your hands on a Feb 2nd, Wall Street Journal or find it on the net, it is really interesting with an excellent pic of the weapon being aimed in the standing position. Looks like it's got more stuff attached to it than Luke Skywalkers Jedi Sword!!
Those older infantry weapons often wind up it the arms rooms of some of our allies, not to mention Egypt!
Good hunting!
bigsky_songdogs
New member
they have a slightly redesigned M4, its the m4A1, full auto instead of 3 rd burst, heavier barrel. But i have seen references to military looking at the SCAR. thats what my cousin said he heard, he is an Army tanker but also does armorer work
armyturner
New member
I got out of the Army in 2008. At that time, I was the Battalion Master Gunner on the tank side of the house, also spent a couple of years as a unit armorer. We began fielding the M4s in 1999 to the majority of the Tank units as well as some of the infantry units. Pretty much all SF units already had them. The units that didn't get M4s began to transition to M16A4s (also some full auto M16A3s to certain units) a few years later. When I got out, all of the combat arms units that I know of had m4s, some SF units had some full auto M4A1s. When we deployed to Iraq, we had several soldiers that were Designated Marksmen and used M14s.
During this time period, several rifles had been tested, but not approved. The XM29 had the 5.56 and 20mm grenade launcher in one package, but it had issues. The XM8 had been tested as well. It was the 5.56 portion of the XM29. The SCAR and HK 416 have also been looked at. I think that the military as a whole just has issues with scrapping all of their current, proven, inventory of weapons. I am sure that 6 or 7 hundred thousand select fire/full auto SCARs for the Army would carry a heafty price tag.
Personally, I believe that a 62 grain 5.56mm round is sufficient in the hands of a well trained soldier. The problem is that more and more soldiers that are not in combat arms units are ending up in the line of fire and they have not had the amount of training that the traditional combat units have had.
Will the military change weapons, eventually. It is a matter of politics more than a matter of having a weapon that is out of date. If the M16/M4 platform was out of date, we wouldn't all be buying/building them.
During this time period, several rifles had been tested, but not approved. The XM29 had the 5.56 and 20mm grenade launcher in one package, but it had issues. The XM8 had been tested as well. It was the 5.56 portion of the XM29. The SCAR and HK 416 have also been looked at. I think that the military as a whole just has issues with scrapping all of their current, proven, inventory of weapons. I am sure that 6 or 7 hundred thousand select fire/full auto SCARs for the Army would carry a heafty price tag.
Personally, I believe that a 62 grain 5.56mm round is sufficient in the hands of a well trained soldier. The problem is that more and more soldiers that are not in combat arms units are ending up in the line of fire and they have not had the amount of training that the traditional combat units have had.
Will the military change weapons, eventually. It is a matter of politics more than a matter of having a weapon that is out of date. If the M16/M4 platform was out of date, we wouldn't all be buying/building them.
AZcayote
New member
Originally Posted By: Doc69erThe 7.62X51 NATO via the M14 has a lot of merit, but I wonder how many Infantry units are willing to put-up with the extra weight of the rifle and ammo even the scout versions...Then of course there is the added recoil of the round...
I have a National Match M14/M1A1 and love It.
I have a SOCOM 16. Been drooling over this one for years. Got the AR, been there done that, but this rifle is right next to my bed at night. Short with a very bad attitude. It gets a lot of attention at the range.
7.62mm has made a come back and from what I hear is it's not the replacement, but is in the mix. Some troops are wielding 5.56 and one of their mates is packing a dusty old M-14.
I have a National Match M14/M1A1 and love It.
I have a SOCOM 16. Been drooling over this one for years. Got the AR, been there done that, but this rifle is right next to my bed at night. Short with a very bad attitude. It gets a lot of attention at the range.
7.62mm has made a come back and from what I hear is it's not the replacement, but is in the mix. Some troops are wielding 5.56 and one of their mates is packing a dusty old M-14.
bigsky_songdogs
New member
Nice rifle
Jeepdude1987
New member
The contest is to find a weapon that will, according to the military evaluators, better serve our troops than an updated and slightly modified M4/M16 system. The verbiage used in the press release, or one of the evaluating General Officers said of the evaluation that the new weapon would have to show it would make a significant improvement over the current weapon system. Which most see as being eluding to this "search for a new weapon" is being done primarily to please all the folks that keep saying the M16/M4's aren't satisfactorily serving our troops.
I think that the real solution would be more range time for the troops. For the last 2 decades or more they have been cutting the amount combat training for all non-combat personnel, which probably made them more proficient at their increasingly technical jobs and since we were not fighting in any real extended conflicts and hadn't really done much more than peace keeping missions for about as long, it probably seemed to make sense.
I think that the real solution would be more range time for the troops. For the last 2 decades or more they have been cutting the amount combat training for all non-combat personnel, which probably made them more proficient at their increasingly technical jobs and since we were not fighting in any real extended conflicts and hadn't really done much more than peace keeping missions for about as long, it probably seemed to make sense.