Tougher training Marines or Army? Number two

[Pence]

The M16 series has been outdated by much better assault rifles.
If anythink, i would want to go into battle with an L86A2 because of its incresed range. As an individual weapon the L85A2, Tavor and the Stg.77 AUG (Unless you dislike getting cuts).

[Arikara]

Increased range is no longer needed. Everything is urban style combat now and you usually won't engage a target more then a couple hundred meters from you most often, most times it will be far closer. Also, there is no point in changing something that is not broken, the M16 series has proved itself over and over again, the M16A4 is among the most highly reguarded assault rifles in the world due to its reliability and customization.

[trogdor1289]

The problem is not the rifle anymore as long as you have a M16A4 then it is the bullet it fires?

[Malik]

Originally Posted by 00SoldierofFortune00

They are not cadets here if that is what they are called in the UK.

You know what I mean.

Originally Posted by 00SoldierofFortune00

And I don't think anyone ever suggested using the M16A4 to train recruits or soldiers, but to use the M16A2 for training while the soldiers and marines out in the battlefield actually get the new ones. They are the exact same weapon except for the removable rail.

I was under the impression that the A4 had full auto, you said that the recruits in training would use the old A2 and I thought that was hypocritical as you said the M16-M8 changeover would be difficult, and you thought using the A2 to train for the A4 would be ideal, when again, it's two different weapons.

Originally Posted by 00SoldierofFortune00

And it seems easy to replace a weapon, but people who learn to fire weapons in the military have to learn the technique the instructor wants them to learn, and if they are taught to use one weapon, then get a completely new one, it is going to take time again to make sure they know how to use the new one and get ajusted again.

They both have triggers, they both fire bullets, they both have the same buttons. If there are any special M16 specific "techniques" I'm missing that the M8 can't do, please share it.

Originally Posted by 00SoldierofFortune00

And the XM8 was cancelled for a reason. It had no other drastic improvements over the M16/M4 and it would of been to costly, especially the sight bateries.

And the ACOGs are solar powered? They cancelled it because they had to, Colt weren't given the chance to compete and by law every weapons manufacter in the US needs to be given a chance to compete for the Army's new weapon (I heard someone say that earlier in the thread). Rather than come up with that competition, they just dropped it.

Originally Posted by 00SoldierofFortune00

If it was such the super weapon it was made out to be, it would of probably been adopted because the Army was looking for a weapon that could be multipurpose with one varient for the rifleman

Not really, they just wanted something better than the M16 which is getting on a bit. The OICW was designed to create a new type of weapon for the airburst grenades.

Originally Posted by 00SoldierofFortune00

...another for machinegunner, one for personal defense, and a sniper rifle varient.

They wanted a whole family. And anyway, it was Squad Automatic Weapon, Carbine, SMG and Dedicated Marksman.

Originally Posted by 00SoldierofFortune00

And no one uses full auto, they usually burst when they have an auto feature.

Controversial. I think it's safe to say that somebody must use full auto, but if you have proof that nobody uses full automatic, then I guess that's alright.

[Arikara]

I was under the impression that the A4 had full auto, you said that the recruits in training would use the old A2 and I thought that was hypocritical as you said the M16-M8 changeover would be difficult, and you thought using the A2 to train for the A4 would be ideal, when again, it's two different weapons.

The M16A2 and M16A4 aren't different weapons Malik. The A4 is just an upgraded variant of the A2. It's practically the exact same in every way, just more reliable and more customization options then the A2.

[Crawley]

Although the Tavor is one ugly beast, Wraith and surprisingly Trog. are correct it is probably the best weapon out there right now

[00SoldierofFortune00]

I was under the impression that the A4 had full auto, you said that the recruits in training would use the old A2 and I thought that was hypocritical as you said the M16-M8 changeover would be difficult, and you thought using the A2 to train for the A4 would be ideal, when again, it's two different weapons.

The using of the M16A2 to train recruits or soldiers is ideal and is already being used, and the weapons are exactly the same except for the removable carrying handle for the pictanny rail.

They both have triggers, they both fire bullets, they both have the same buttons. If there are any special M16 specific "techniques" I'm missing that the M8 can't do, please share it.

You are getting rid of the M16 aiming system and replacing it with a totally new one and front grip. In addition to learning how to actually shoot with it, you also have to retrain everyone in how to properly clean them, get replacement parts, know how to transport them, and how to change the weapon into a different version(such as the sniper rifle variant, light Machinegunner variant, etc.)

And the ACOGs are solar powered? They cancelled it because they had to, Colt weren't given the chance to compete and by law every weapons manufacter in the US needs to be given a chance to compete for the Army's new weapon (I heard someone say that earlier in the thread). Rather than come up with that competition, they just dropped it.

With the first 30 prototypes delivered as of November 2003, XM8 prototypes entered testing, and later, at least 200 developmental prototypes were procured. Among the complaints during testing were too low a battery life for the weapon's powered sight system and some ergonomics issues. Two other key issues were reducing the weapon's weight and increasing the heat resistance of the hand guard, which would start to melt after firing too many rounds. The main testing was largely completed, and the Army pushed for funding for a large field test. However, in 2004 Congress denied $26 million dollars funding for 7,000 rifles to do a wide scale test fielding of the XM8 in 2005. At the time the rifle still had developmental goals that were incomplete, primarily associated with the weapon's weight; the battery life had been extended, and a more heat-resistant plastic hand-guard added. The earliest product brochure lists the target weight for the carbine variant at 5.7 lb (2.6 kg) with the then current prototype at 6.2 lb (2.8 kg). The weight of the carbine prototype has since grown to 7.5 lb (3.4 kg) according to a brochure released by HK and General Dynamics in January 2005.

During the same period, the Army came under pressure from other arms makers to open up the XM8 to competition. The main argument was that the weapon that was being adopted was a substantially different system than for the original competition that ATK and H&K had actually won (see XM29). Other issues were that the Army has a legislated obligation to prefer U.S.-based manufacturers, and that a previous agreement with Colt Defense required the Army to involve Colt in certain small-arms programs. The XM8 program was put on hold by the Army. The exact reason why this happened is a matter of debate; some combination of the aforementioned technical issues, funding restrictions, and outside pressure being involved.

http://www.answers.com/topic/xm8-rifle

Its not just because they were under contract. If the weapon was so superior to the M16, they would of found some way around that contract.

Not really, they just wanted something better than the M16 which is getting on a bit. The OICW was designed to create a new type of weapon for the airburst grenades.

Read what I said and posted above. I already said they wanted a weapon that could be used for multiple purposes and easily interchangable parts with advantages over the M16.

They wanted a whole family. And anyway, it was Squad Automatic Weapon, Carbine, SMG and Dedicated Marksman.

Above again.

Controversial. I think it's safe to say that somebody must use full auto, but if you have proof that nobody uses full automatic, then I guess that's alright.

As said before, after a certain amount of bullets fired(say around 3), there is no point in full auto. And it would just promote bad shooting practices. They seem to have been doing fine without full auto for over 20 years.

[trogdor1289]

Guys rembember why the first Marines thread got locked? Watch it.

[=NAA=Spaztik_Ferret]

Trog I think their posts are staying mature up to this point.

The OICW project was started because the US military believed that the current personal projectile weapon had hit it's peak. The only way to increase the personal rifles effectiveness would be to create alternate ways of killing the enemy. Hence the airburst grenade. Also there were other rifles introduced that shot the sabot rounds and the G11 with the caseless ammo. Once the XM-25 was ditched, the XM-8 was ditched as well because like so many have said it (as well as the other entries into the program) didn't offer enough improvement to justify the cost of upgrade.

I would like to compare this to your PC. How often do you upgrade your video card? Every year? Month? Why upgrade every time a new card comes out when the old card still gets the job done?

Eventually the M-16 will be replaced, but not until it is so far behind the power curve that someone can actually make a strong case to drop the loot on something superior.

[Malik]

Yeah, but every other army in the world has been doing fine with full auto for the last 20 years as well. Well, the Brits last rifle, the FN FAL was a semi automatic variant but the squddies came up with a trick whereby using a matchstick you could make it full auto. Full auto comes in handy in some circumstances.

I'm sorry about the misunderstanding from the M16A4, it wasn't long ago that I could've swore the common understanding of the rifle on this forum was that it had full auto, but I guess I was mistaken.

I can see why the army would reject the XM8 going into production, as indeed they currently have a perfectly acceptable system, but at the same time I think it's safe to say that they could do with a new rifle. The M16 is far from perfect, as are most rifles in the world at the moment. Who knows, maybe the might US of A will be the first to show the world the next perfect rifle.