M16A2 (A4 as well) question

[Lampshade111]

I wish they could do a faster test.

They built a few hundred pre-production XM8s, they could issue those to a unit in the front and see how they like them compared to their M4s or M16s.

[Deuce6]

Originally Posted by DOAW

Ha! I wonder how long it will take before they figure out how to remove the burst limiter and we see a whole bunch of rock n roll?

You don't even have to remove that "pin". Just take some 550 guts, wrap it around a certain "hook", pull it back, tie it to a takedown pin, and bam. Full Auto. And you still have single fire and safe.

I used to do it all the time.

[$kelet0r]

meh
what'll happen next is that there will be an M16A5/M4v2 designed with a gas piston system instead of the current blowback system. The Yanks will be stuck with the AR15's mediocre design forever...

[Deuce6]

I like the design. Never had a problem with it.

[Lampshade111]

The basic design of the M16/M4 is very accurate, has low recoil, and the gas piston system would fix the reliability issues so what would be so mediocre about that?

I doubt we will go with a new version of the M16 and M4 if we do decide to upgrade. Personally I still want us to go back select the XM8 firing either improved 5.56x45mm ammo or 6.8x43mm ammo.

[pasfreak]

xm8 cancellation was just plain dumb.
they "didn't want to" rearm the whole army
even though it was cheap, and you could train a soldier in 1/3rd the time of an m16, and clean the thing in 70% less time. Not to mention that 1/4 of NATO was willing to adopt it as a JSAR.
It was a better gun, more reliable, more accurate, and even though they NEVER reached the minimum weight goal of 5.7 lbs, it was STILL a full 3 POUNDS LIGHTER than the m16.
the FN SCAR weighs 7.4 lbs light, 7.7 lbs heavy. M8 carbine was 6.2-6.7 last time I checked. It also had a sight akin to the G36 (red dot AND optical) and a battery that lasted 12 years. they even started developing electronic bullet counters and computer-controlled fire control accesable by PDA. Surely one of the most advanced weapons of our time, but the beaurocrats up at Army HQ wanted to stick with the 50 year old technology, just like they did with the Bradly IFV and even the M16 itself. Bitches.

[pasfreak]

Originally Posted by Lampshade111

The basic design of the M16/M4 is very accurate, has low recoil, and the gas piston system would fix the reliability issues so what would be so mediocre about that?

I doubt we will go with a new version of the M16 and M4 if we do decide to upgrade. Personally I still want us to go back select the XM8 firing either improved 5.56x45mm ammo or 6.8x43mm ammo.

there have been mixed reviews of the 6.8

but its better than what we have now. we are using a long range very thin bullet for close combat. We already have DMRs that shoot 7.62 NATO, and as long as you hit the target at that range with a big enough caliber, who cares. 6.8 is less accurate at longer ranges, but in IRAQ, we need it

what we really need is a rifle that can EASILY switch out barrels/receivers so when we enter another confrontation with different needs, the entire army/NATO forces can config. their weapons to suit those needs.

[Deuce6]

logistics is the problem. Try buying a ton of 6.8 ammo and ship it to Iraq. It'll take close to a year. Sometimes we just have to go with what we have. And although 5.56 isn't the greatest, it is effective.