Today's US military standard long arms

[commanding]

It occurs to me, that perhaps the current US military long arm, whatever it's name is, appears to be much more closely related to the old Vietnam era M-16 that I used in 1971, than that M-16 was related to the M-1 of World War II. The change of round size downward, the change to synthetic stocks from wood, the lightness of the weapons, the almost negligable recoil from modern weapons including my old M-16.
And of course the ability to switch fire to fully automatic or semi auto, with the flick of a switch.

what do you all think?

[little icebear]

It occurs to me, that perhaps the current US military long arm, whatever it's name is, appears to be much more closely related to the old Vietnam era M-16 that I used in 1971, than that M-16 was related to the M-1 of World War II.?

No kiddin?

[LineDoggie]

Lots of changes in tactics and weapons employments since the days of the Garand.

Used to be the Infantry Regiments 3 heavy weapons companies (D,H, L) would suppress with watercooled M1917A1 Brownings while the rifle companies moved forwards from the Line of Departure to the Objectives. The guns were used almost like artillery batteries firing suppression, rear slope interdiction, etc.

Now the fight is a lot closer for the most part, no time or training for gunners to be employed like that. and the riflemen have the organic capability to help in suppression. More fluid than hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle of the WWI/WWII/Korea era.


S.L.A.Marshall did a study of WWII which found infantryman rarely fired their weapons in Combat. But the BAR Man and those closest did fire their weapons more often than not. The Army ran with it to come up with project SALVO which really never worked IIRC

[NoRestForTheWeary]

I'm pretty sure the only real differences in today's M16s and M4s are just minor improvements here and there like thicker barrels, rifling adjustments, new sights, grips, etc.

[commanding]

I'm pretty sure the only real differences in today's M16s and M4s are just minor improvements here and there like thicker barrels, rifling adjustments, new sights, grips, etc.

don't the new weapons have superior flash suppressors, different stocks and butts, as well as much improved sighting? How about the bores? anyone know about the bores lining?
I think the gas operated piston works about the same from what I can see as well as the selectors, and ejection gate.
The new ones look much shorter than the old M16 to me for some reason.

[little icebear]

It´s still the same weapon. AR-15. That´s why your question is kind of strange...


The new ones look much shorter than the old M16 to me for some reason.

The M4 is the carabine variant.

[Mofreaka]

I don't know what to think, because i'm not quite sure what point your trying to make here. Can you rephrase it perhaps?

[Hippie Homer]

I always thought the XM8 was a sexy weapon that would be a good war fighter. Its performance was far superior to the current M4 and M16 but the government canceled it. A jammed gun during the midst of battle always makes a big different.

http://homepage.mac.com/topcover/blog/images/XM8FinalVersion.jpg

[LineDoggie]

I always thought the XM8 was a sexy weapon that would be a good war fighter. Its performance was far superior to the current M4 and M16 but the government canceled it. A jammed gun during the midst of battle always makes a big different.

http://homepage.mac.com/topcover/blog/images/XM8FinalVersion.jpgIt looks like too much Bling to my eye. Like HK was going for a Starship Troopers rifle

[Eknytz]

I haven't seen very many M16A4's in the US Army, just M4's.
Does anyone know the ratio of M16A4's to M4/M4A1's?

[LongShot]

I always thought the XM8 was a sexy weapon that would be a good war fighter. Its performance was far superior to the current M4 and M16 but the government canceled it. A jammed gun during the midst of battle always makes a big different.




I wouldn't say it was far superior, in fact one of the reasons the project was canned in 05 (along with the whining from Clot Defense) was that the rifle, while it did perform better, the performance was not substantial enough to justify the cost. (speaking on accuracy and durability.)

However for functionality, in the area of stoppages, the XM8 dominated in the dust test...127 stoppages in 60,000 rounds compared to the M-4s 882...this test was the reason for the Army brass comment that despite these tests, "troops are generally satisfied with the M4"....yeah, because they dont have another option to compare it to.

PS in the same test, the XM8 out performed the HK416 and FN SCAR.

[LongShot]

don't the new weapons have superior flash suppressors, different stocks and butts, as well as much improved sighting? How about the bores? anyone know about the bores lining?
I think the gas operated piston works about the same from what I can see as well as the selectors, and ejection gate.
The new ones look much shorter than the old M16 to me for some reason.

M16/M4 operate on direct impingement.

[Yarrick2]

It looks like too much Bling to my eye. Like HK was going for a Starship Troopers rifle
it's the design that was made from the feedback HK got from the end users, so i guess they wanted a "Starship Troopers rifle" as you so eloquently put it. Any way whats wrong with taking inspiration in arms from the novel that has influenced so many other aspects of warfighting since it's publishing?

[AroundTheCorner]

I haven't seen very many M16A4's in the US Army, just M4's.
Does anyone know the ratio of M16A4's to M4/M4A1's?

Infrantry gets the M4, non-combat troops get the M16A4

[little icebear]

it's the design that was made from the feedback HK got from the end users

Are you sure about that? The XM-8 is pretty much nothing else but a G36 in a new suit...

BTW:

I´d have liked it, if they had built the original G36 a little more XM-8ish in the first place, since the adjustable buttstock is more practical.
The side-folding buttstock of the G36 is kind of outdated.

[LongShot]

Are you sure about that? The XM-8 is pretty much nothing else but a G36 in a new suit...



Actually, its based on the small arms portion of the ATK XM29...during the OICW program, H&K were subcontracted under ATK to build the rifle component, while ATK was building the 20mm components and weapon furniture. When that project got canned, H&K took what they had built and slapped it in the "Starship troopers" rifle.

[little icebear]

Actually, its based on the small arms portion of the ATK XM29...

... which is basically nothing but a G36 variant (which accepts stanag ar-15 mags), if I´m not mistaken. ;)

[LongShot]

... which is basically nothing but a G36, if I´m not mistaken. ;)


They really couldn't re-invent the wheel that much could they?;) According to H&K they do share similarities, but when asked, they the XM-8 being based on the G-36 vehemently...I know that much from a 2007 SHOT show argument(ahem, discussion) with an H&K rep.

[little icebear]

Nah, reinventing the wheel would have been very interesting, but it´s certainly not cost-efficient.

Just changing mainly the outer appearance of the G 36 and selling it to the US DoD would have been full of win for HK, though.

[LongShot]

Nah, reinventing the wheel would have been very interesting, but it´s certainly not cost-efficient.

Just changing mainly the outer appearance of the G 36 and selling it to the US DoD would have been full of win for HK, though.


Im still pretty impressed that the XM-8 outperforms the HK416 in dust tests....

[little icebear]

So does the G 36. :D

Okay, I should stop right here... p-)

[LongShot]

So does the G 36. :D

Okay, I should stop right here... p-)


Touché' sir.

[commanding]

I don't know what to think, because i'm not quite sure what point your trying to make here. Can you rephrase it perhaps?

Okay...I am not a whiz at making myself clear. I guess what I meant to say was that the amount of change in the standard long arm of the US army....per time passed, is different. In other words, 1945, the M1 Garand rifle. jump forward 26 years to 1971, I was using the M16 in it's early stages...
1971, the M16...jump forward 38 years, we are still using basically the same weapon, though the bells and whistles are different, grips, buttstock, forestock, flash suppresor, optics, etc. It still has the same pistol grip, the same selector switch, the same gate, the same forward assist, the same gas operated piston, etc.

My point was that there was such a huge amount of change in the 26 years between 1945 and 71, compared to the 1971 to 2009 period in the long arm.

sorry for the long winded explanation.

[LaoSexMachine]

Okay...I am not a whiz at making myself clear. I guess what I meant to say was that the amount of change in the standard long arm of the US army....per time passed, is different. In other words, 1945, the M1 Garand rifle. jump forward 26 years to 1971, I was using the M16 in it's early stages...
1971, the M16...jump forward 38 years, we are still using basically the same weapon, though the bells and whistles are different, grips, buttstock, forestock, flash suppresor, optics, etc. It still has the same pistol grip, the same selector switch, the same gate, the same forward assist, the same gas operated piston, etc.

My point was that there was such a huge amount of change in the 26 years between 1845 and 71, compared to the 1971 to 2009 period in the long arm.

sorry for the long winded explanation.

To me a switch from an M16a1 to an A4 is not that big of a difference. Garand to M14 is to me.

[Dragonscript]

The US won't see a major change in Small Arms until caseless ammo comes along. The reason the AR-15/M-16 design and its variants are still around is because it does what the military needs it to do. Until tactics or technology change, the US will keep using it.

[Alpha_Mustang]

... which is basically nothing but a G36 variant (which accepts stanag ar-15 mags), if I´m not mistaken. ;)

You, erm... are.

The XM8 had a number of other innovations the G36 line wasn't quite capable of.

For one, the XM8 was supposed to be a modular "rifle family" which is to say, through the use of drop in kits, a carbine length XM8 could be re-armored into a sharpshooter system. While the G36 variants share parts commonality, tools must be used to swap barrels. The XM8 program pioneered the barrel modularity to prevalent on many modern small arms.

Supposed variants were to include:
-Carbine XM8 (12.5" barrel kit)
-Sharpshooter XM8 (20" barrel kit, 4x scope)
-LMG XM8 (20" barrel kit w/ integrated bi-pod)
-"Commando" XM8 (9.5" barrel kit, tail cap instead of stock)

Also, instead of Mil-Spec 1913 rails, the XM8 was going to use a PCAP system, which would maintain a perfect zero when swapping accessories.

[little icebear]

You, erm... are...


not. :)

Read my posts once again properly or better: Find yourself some pics of a stripped XM-8 and a stripped G 36 and compare the operating system.

Mind that I didn´t claim that it´s the same weapon. It´s obviously not - otherwise they wouldn´t look differently. ;)

Every difference you mentioned is about the outer appearence of the weapon. And even from the looks, you can easily tell the kinship without stripping the gun down.

[Yarrick2]

... which is basically nothing but a G36 variant (which accepts stanag ar-15 mags), if I´m not mistaken. ;)
the xm-8 did not accept STANAG magazines. The STANAG design is actually the weakest link in the Stoner family of weapons.

[Mordoror]

It occurs to me, that perhaps the current US military long arm, whatever it's name is, appears to be much more closely related to the old Vietnam era M-16 that I used in 1971, than that M-16 was related to the M-1 of World War II.

the point here is inetersting
although we have seen great evolutions in almost all warfare equipment from 70s to now (not even talking from 45 to now) one element has never reacher that level of improvment and it is the individual weapon(s)

They are still all based on the same ammo and same mechanics
and very few researches were done to improve that
basically (even if minor improvments exist off course) the russian weapons are derived from AK47, the US from M16 and some other from FAL/G3

the only interesting project (but born dead) was the HK G11

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as42-e.htm

is it meaning that all assault weapon are nearly prefect and thus that it is unusefull to look for evolution ?

is it meaning that this issue is regarded as secundary as long as the assault rifle acts as it was intended for (basically said as a auto rifle) ?

i don't know but every time somebody launches a discussion about individual military weapons i wonder why we are stuck on basically "old design"

[OneShotLuni]

The only good thing about the M4 is the size and aftermarket accessories. Other than that it is a piece of ****. If the army wants to adapt a new rifle without much more cost, it should keep the colt contract but use the m5 instead. Same thing pretty much as an m4 I believe but gas piston instead on gas impingement. You also would have pretty much all the same parts except the gas piston itself. So that pretty muchs removes cost in the long run for ordering parts.

[MichaelF]

I always thought the XM8 was a sexy weapon that would be a good war fighter. Its performance was far superior to the current M4 and M16 but the government canceled it. A jammed gun during the midst of battle always makes a big different.

http://homepage.mac.com/topcover/blog/images/XM8FinalVersion.jpg

I got a chance to paw and shoot the different variants, back in 2005. I would have taken it to war. Pity.

[MichaelF]

Okay...I am not a whiz at making myself clear. I guess what I meant to say was that the amount of change in the standard long arm of the US army....per time passed, is different. In other words, 1945, the M1 Garand rifle. jump forward 26 years to 1971, I was using the M16 in it's early stages...
1971, the M16...jump forward 38 years, we are still using basically the same weapon, though the bells and whistles are different, grips, buttstock, forestock, flash suppresor, optics, etc. It still has the same pistol grip, the same selector switch, the same gate, the same forward assist, the same gas operated piston, etc.

My point was that there was such a huge amount of change in the 26 years between 1945 and 71, compared to the 1971 to 2009 period in the long arm.

sorry for the long winded explanation.

Small Arms technology matured almost fully in the 1960's. Short of major breakthroughs in ancillary technologies (materials, etc), I doubt the weapons of 2030 will be much different from what we have now.
Caseless (or telescope-cased) ammunition, perhaps. Slightly lighter weapons. Integrated electronics.

Flechettes and needlers turned out to be dogs. So did gyrojets and cone rifles.

[little icebear]

the xm-8 did not accept STANAG magazines. .

You did not qoute carefully. The quote you used was not about the xm-8 but about the OICW.
And that one eats stanags.



The STANAG design is actually the weakest link in the Stoner family of weapons.

Well... another topic...

[Asheren]

Small Arms technology matured almost fully in the 1960's. Short of major breakthroughs in ancillary technologies (materials, etc), I doubt the weapons of 2030 will be much different from what we have now.
Caseless (or telescope-cased) ammunition, perhaps. Slightly lighter weapons. Integrated electronics.

Flechettes and needlers turned out to be dogs. So did gyrojets and cone rifles.

I would rather look at body armor technology rather than guns themselves as a possible source of next change in firearms. Body armors are starting to reach reasonable levels of protection to cost and mobility ratio. We can already see that low tech armies are trying to compensate for their enemies increased levels of protection(amongst other advantages) using weapons that were not intended mainly to fight against infantry. (RPG without frag warhead,ATGM) Its quite possible that in next decade we will be able to make armors that would be able to stop common rifle rounds at same time allow similiar flexibility levels of class IIIa body armor. OCIW might not be a complete faliture creating portable dual purpose system might be one of the ways to go in such conditions.

[domokun]

OICW just had problem of being little too heavy for human component of system. Development of grenade launcher component is still going on as separate system.




Small Arms technology matured almost fully in the 1960's. Short of major breakthroughs in ancillary technologies (materials, etc), I doubt the weapons of 2030 will be much different from what we have now.
Caseless (or telescope-cased) ammunition, perhaps. Slightly lighter weapons. Integrated electronics.

Flechettes and needlers turned out to be dogs. So did gyrojets and cone rifles.

True fire arms have been pretty much same since WWII, only thing that have really changed since that is materials and accessories.

I would not rule out flechettes and caseless rounds as both types of more advanced ammo were abandoned after cold war ended as improvements they provided weren't worth cost change would have cost. Current small arms development is mostly improving current designs due to current crisises. Next big change in west will happen when NATO... USA really sees changing ammo supply system worth price involved.

[commanding]

To me a switch from an M16a1 to an A4 is not that big of a difference. Garand to M14 is to me.

to me...big change was:
Garand>M14>M16 (time elapsed was approx. 29 years)

to me very little change:
M16> A4 (time elapsed approx. 38 years)

my quiz is why so little change in the last 40 years or so?

[domokun]

my quiz is why so little change in the last 40 years or so?

Not that much improvements in tech or doctrines. Everything else related to accessories has changed lot in especially in last 15 years, sights especially. There isn't that much improvement in weapons itself, most of possible changes would given not much improvement in performance when compared to cost. That is why AR-15 family has remained in service over all that time, there would have been only marginal improvement if another family of weapons would have adopted and that would have cost more than it's worth. AR-15 is good enough rifle for job and current generation is one of best when it comes to modularity.

[chino65]

Infrantry gets the M4, non-combat troops get the M16A4

It used to be the other way round...

[AroundTheCorner]

when??????

[chino65]

when??????

Not with the M16A4...

But it used to be that the riflemen get the full length rifle while the support troops, signallers or armoured guys etc get the carbine because firing a rifle is considered secondary so they are given a more compact but less capable weapon.

[AroundTheCorner]

ahhhhhh, ok.

[chino65]

To me a switch from an M16a1 to an A4 is not that big of a difference. Garand to M14 is to me.



IMO, there was not much difference between the Garand and the M14 other than the M14 magazine feed. The M14 was still a semi-auto only rifle (with the auto versions deemed unsuitable).

Furthermore, its sans pistol grip, one piece wooded stock construction is very "WW2".

M14 to M16 was a HUGE jump:

From WW2 wooden one-piece rifle stock semi-auto to aluminum with black plastic select fire AND, in a small calibre. The M16 carrying handle, the ambidextrous non-reciprocating charging handle were all quite revolutionary at that time. From heavy long arm to small and light. And this is only the outside. Inside, love it or hate it, the direct gas impingement was also not a common trait among service rifles.

The M16 was the first to attach an external grenade launcher on a large scale. And this was made easy because the handguards can be replaced with the M203/handguard unit.

If ever there was a time in recent history where US jumped leaps and bounds in small-arms, it was with the M16.

[Asheren]

IMO, there was not much difference between the Garand and the M14 other than the M14 magazine feed. The M14 was still a semi-auto only rifle (with the auto versions deemed unsuitable).

Furthermore, its sans pistol grip, one piece wooded stock construction is very "WW2".

M14 to M16 was a HUGE jump:

From WW2 wooden one-piece rifle stock semi-auto to aluminum with black plastic select fire AND, in a small calibre. The M16 carrying handle, the ambidextrous non-reciprocating charging handle were all quite revolutionary at that time. From heavy long arm to small and light. And this is only the outside. Inside, love it or hate it, the direct gas impingement was also not a common trait among service rifles.

The M16 was the first to attach an external grenade launcher on a large scale. And this was made easy because the handguards can be replaced with the M203/handguard unit.

If ever there was a time in recent history where US jumped leaps and bounds in small-arms, it was with the M16.

Indeed and beside accesories with current technology any significant increase in firearms abilties seems to increase other things like cost, weight or complexity above acceptable levels. Unless there is some sort of external factor forcing a significant change i wouldn't expect a firearms soliders will wield in nest ten years to be much more different that current ones.

[El Diablo Rojo]

Has anyone seen a US Army soldier with an M16A4? I see Marines with A4s all the time, Army only M4s and M16A2s; either way, ATC's theory is contrary to historical precedent (see Garand/M1 carbine usage).

[BrianT]

I had an A4 in basic. Most fighting units have M4s. Anybody carrying around a m16 is taking it to the chow hall and the office and does not need a rail system for attachments. Or at the very least, if they are going outside the wire, their unit still can't afford optics and lasers.

[El Diablo Rojo]

I had an A4 in basic. Most fighting units have M4s. Anybody carrying around a m16 is taking it to the chow hall and the office and does not need a rail system for attachments. Or at the very least, if they are going outside the wire, their unit still can't afford optics and lasers.
What time from were you in BCT, if I may ask?