Welcome to Gaia! ::

Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

The United States is still using it's out dated M16 and M4 carbine. The weapon designed was designed in the 1950's by Eugine stoner and the initial design was rejected, primarily in favor of the M14 which was based off the M1 Garand. Then about 10 years later it was fielded in Vietnam, except it was a much worse version and used the much weaker .223.

Some early problems plaguing the weapon were- low cartridge power, frequent rusting, frequent jams, weak magazines (you could only load 18-19 rounds instead of 20 sense 20 would make it reliably jam) extremely weak plastic, frequent required cleaning, jamming when a little bit of dust or sand got in it, and over-all being fairly unreliable- it was said that more M16's killed troops than enemy soldiers, due to their tendency to jam.


The M16A2 had some significant improvements. It could be fitted with an underbarrel grenade luancher, which improved it's lethality, as well as some other accessories. It used a much larger receiver, about a pound heavier, or around 30% larger, so that the gases filtered directly on to the weapon could be diffused easier, a chrome lined barrel, plastic that was over 10 times stronger, a more reliable and larger magazine (30 rounds), some improved features to make it more ergonomic, a manual assist so when the weapon experienced a common type of malfunction it could be cleared easily, and came with cleaning instructions instead of proclaiming it was "self cleaning". They never changed the round, even though it was in large part the problem (was super dirty) but due to the enlarged other features it had decent reliability with the dirtier but more powerful round, so some could say it's more powerful.

Simplifying the issue, the primary problem with the weapon is that it was chopped up and practically stolen by colt which the U.S. no longer does business with (1995 they started using FN to make their guns, sense colt had "unsavory business practices" ). Eugine stoner originally designed it but he was put off by the 5.56mm, especially sense his gun was designed to fire much larger cartridges, such as the 7.62mm x 51mm NATO, over twice as powerful, and used cleaner gunpowder. Ironically, it's the modern M16, firing a much weaker round, is the same size as a previous Ar-10 at 7.5 lb, primarily becuase such a large receiver is needed to buffer out the gases.


There were 2 options available- use the smaller, weaker 7mm but bullpup and 20 round magazine design of the British, controllable under fire but using a weaker round (that had the same ballistic trajectory of the .30-06 and was said to be more accurate, reminiscent of the 6.5mm grendel compared to the 7.62mm x 51mm NATO) or the AR-10, longer (and therefore more unwieldy and difficult to use in close quarters combat) and heavier, but with roughly the same recoil using a 7.62mm x 51mm NATO round that was much more powerful and could be controlled with full auto, also with considerable accuracy (some production models had 1 MOA). Sadly, the U.S. went with the M14, a good weapon, but very heavy (4-5 pounds heavier than even the AR-10, at 10-11 pounds instead of 7.25) based off of the M1 Garand, which while good was relativley uncontrollable in fully automatic fire and was very heavy and large, making it unwieldy.

In response, rather than choosing the other two weapons they determined that the 7.62mm (a weaker version of the .30-06 previously praised and then condemned in a similar manner) was uncontrollable in fire unless by a super heavy weapon (despite an Ar-10 with a huge muzzle break being totally controllable and having similar recoil to a .223). So, instead of going with the smaller 7mm round, vehemently pushed by sublimate denied after several unreasonable complaints (mostly that it was weak and could never live up to the .30-06's power) that was super accurate but had comparable power to the 6.8mm remington and 6.5mm grendel that look promising today and are fielded by a lot of special forces units, they went with an EVEN SMALLER ROUND. Even worse, they used this small round in the "large but low recoil platform". The thing is, it was a waste, sense the 5.56mm does not need a low recoil design and the weapon was huge.



Even worse, colt stole the design and only got away with half the patents. Essentially butchering the highly sensitive weapon design (it's called "direct impingement", as in it lacks a piston, which would be like pouring gasoline on an engine and saying "go" and then expecting it to actually work- that type of design is similar to a rocket, which totally has a reputation for being reliable. rolleyes ), and running Eugine Stoner out of business, they took over with their super crappy but in trials highly praised (even though it was considered crap by Eugine stoner who adamantly refused to legitimately use the 5.56mm round and was intent on showing the military, once they accepted his design, what it could really do, like we see in the SR-25 with it's amazing accuracy, low recoil and high durability) and basically screwed over the entire U.S. military.

EVEN WORSE, Eugine stoner designed two guns, the M69W (you can flip the name upside down and get the same thing) which was highly praised by navy seals until it was designed to fire tracers that even the M16 couldn't fire, wrecking the reliability of the weapon (which was mostly due to political reasons, I.E. colt paying off people to make it so they would kill the M69W) and the clearly superior AR-18. The AR-18 was 2 inches shorter, used an 18 inch barrel, was a full pound lighter, several times reliable, super easy to clean, had a folding stock (functionally impossible on an M16 sense the stock is used as a gas buffer tube) had 990 m/s instead of 940 (better barrel design), had a 40 round magazine instead of 20 at the time, (now 30), and was cheaper and easier to make made of stamped steel and so easily made in factories (this was in large part due to the receiver being much smaller, so it could be made from lighter and thinner aluminum steel which could be machined easier instead of having to be cut from a single block like the M16- with plastic it may have been even lighter). It has gone on to serve as the basis for the G36, Hk416, FN SCAR, British SA80, and many other short stroke gas piston designs, which are simply considered superior to the direct impingement design in practically every way. Despite being cheaper and practically better in every way (also far more reliable with the same ammunition, which was incredible for the time) the military rejected it, mostly due to political reasons.


After this Eugine Stoner left for South America, creating their weapons where patents did not apply and designing or help designing practically all other weapons in European countries of the 20th century. The basis for his design has been used in a lot of weapons and is still used to this date. The SR-25, with unparallelled .5 MOA (4 times better than a standard bolt action sniper rifle) with 20 round detachable box magazine at the same weight and size as the M16 with roughly the same recoil (mainly due to the recoil buffer) was directly designed by him. He also created several other light machine gun designs.

He died in 97 at about 75. He was considered in league with John Browning and John Garand in terms of weapon design.


More or less, some other flaws of the weapon are not fixed. It uses picanty rails which are universal accessory attachment, in other words any scope from any gun can theoretically be attached relativley easily, along with lasers, foregrips, grenade launchers and flashlights, but this is not enough. The weapon is still using direct impingement despite the obvious cheaper and stronger nature of the short stroke gas piston design. It uses and unnecessarily long magazine well which is said to be responsible for approximately half of the jams of the weapon. The best design have the rounds in the chamber before the round is even technically loaded in, which seems like a no brainer sense you want the round in the gun and to travel hardly any distance as to not create a region where complications could occur, and there's no real reason not to do this (even though the long magazine well is what NATO and all other Europeans and U.S. use). The weapon, with it's direct impingement, needs a much larger receiver, about a pound heavier than what it originally was and the AR-18 (6.6 pounds compared to 7.5 with the current M16) which is incredibly hard to machine- actually, it's milled. The same type of reliability and accuracy can be made with a much easier to machine design, and it would be significantly lighter weight and reliable too.

With very simple changes, in theory it should be possible to even take an M16 design and use a piston in it's direct impingement design, simply by placing a piston in the gas tube with springs that are calibrated correctly- with mass engineering this would be relativley cheap to implement, as a spring and a steel rod are not very expensive.


In the 90's the XM8 was designed. It had significant improvements over the M16. For one, the Stanag magazine was dropped- a much more reliable and effective magazine was developed, that sported translucent polymers (to see how many bullets were left), somewhat stronger than steel in that it could be bent more and was less likely to scratch, and was designed to be more ergonomic in loading and removing *Videosz! 1:01 for magazine operation (it had a little trigger to remove the magazine that kept it in firmly, so it wasn't super tight but was still hard to remove unless this holder was slightly moved). The weapon was shown to be able to fire over 400 rounds from 4 100 round drum magazines (the BETA-C is crap, but this magazine loading design was much better and due to this magazine design did not stress the magazine well). It did not need cleaning for over 15,000 rounds (although it was expected to be cleaned very often), and had double the life of an M16 (at 10,000 rounds, 5,000 rounds replacement for barrel) with a much longer barrel life in regards to the M16 at over 4 times this amount primarily due to it's polygonal rifling and hammer forged design. The weapon also sported various variants, such as sniperized and SAW versions, that were considered relativley applicable for the time. With it's reliability and performance it may have actually been okay as a multi-role weapon. Straight up dope, In a dust test it was 7.44 times more reliable than the M4 carbine, with 116 stoppages instead of 863

The only designs issues were it's crappy 1990's era stuff. No picanty rails with crappy hanguards (that could easily be replaced with modern plastic) a desire to integrate a scope (like in the G36, instead of using picanty rails...) which made it heavier and bulkier, and a very bad stock that was WAY longer than it needed to be (33 inches long with a 12.5 inch barrel, in the same way an M4 carbine could have been 231 inches longer, 2 inches shorter, meaning that the XM8 just had a stupidly long stock that should have been shortened). The XM8 also was not STANAG compatible, which complicated the issue, but the STANAG magazines are crap.


Considering at the time that the M16 and things didn't have picanty rails today these issues could be fixed and would have been shortly. What was the issue? Well, colt desired to compete with these new weapons, even though it wasn't an open competition just a weapon replacement- congressional pressures made this a reality. As well, the weapon almost twice as expensive as the M16, which was considered an issue.

Ignoring colt's Assholey-ness, the cost should not have been an issue. First of all, the weapon is twice as durable- this means that the m16 at a 10,000 round life needs to be replaced twice as often than the XM8 at a 20,000 round life; as well, an M16 comes with an extra 500 dollar barrel to replace the barrel every 5,000 rounds, while the XM8 barrel can be used up to 20,000 rounds and in theory, 10,000 in accordance with the barrel only having half the life of the m16- even if we excluded the extra costs the M16 would go from 1000 to 1500 dollars, compared to 2000 dollars for an XM8 with a scope and two magazines.


As well, the weapon is NOT that expensive. At 2000 dollars it would cost around 20 billion dollars to completely field 10 million soldiers with the weapon- out of the 800 billion dollar budget, our main weapon that our main units use (I.E. people) would only cost about 1/40th of the budget. Thing is, we only have 3 million- so that's only 6.6 billion dollars. Thing is, we only have 1.5 million troops who use the weapon on a regular basis, as they are actively infantry; so 1/2 of 1/3, or 3.3 billion dollars.. Thing is, we only sent in 300,000 troops in Iraq and whatnot and that was out largest troopscape- only about 100,000 are still there. This would only be about a billion dollars, or 1/800th of the militaries budget.

THING IS, due to the barrel being replaced 1/4th the amount and the weapon having twice the durability this weapon would actually be cheaper. 1 to 1 in terms of weapon replacement cost (1000 compared to 2000, but you need twice as many M16's), but sense you don't need barrel replacements but every 20,000 rounds instead of 5,000, the M16 becomes twice as expensive. This is due to a price of projected durability losses, not unit replacement losses- obviously, we don't lose very many M16's and many go on to be used for their full intended service length. Even so it would only only be about 500 dollars more for an Xm8 that had 7.5 times more reliability, was more ergonomic, in theory lighter weight (the scope being about 1 pound in the 7.5 pound rifle, which should be able to be removed), be able to withstand much more abuse including artic and dirt/dust heavy environment, being capable of firing while under water AND use a large magazine (like a 100 round drum magazine) with little to no reliability issues, practically never having to be cleaned and being more ergonomic.



With better rounds even the weakness of the crap .223 could be compensated what with the better rifling twists we know of the and M855A1 better armor piercing copper rounds or the super accurate Mk. 262 5 gram boat tail hollow point round (still technically viable in the geneva convention).

EVEN CRAZIER, what with the ease of polygonal barrel designs due to flow forming design techniques and their increased strength with a cobalt chrome design, it seems almost a no brainer to switch over to this. "Engineering team members met all of their proof-of-concept test objectives when they fired more than 24,000 rounds and achieved an 1,100 degrees barrel temperature. Normal steel barrels would have failed under this kind of treatment". Other pieces, if possible, should be replaced by this.

Ironically, the 7.62mm was deemed to have too much recoil under automatic fire BUT THE FULLY AUTOMATIC BUTTON was REMOVED from M16's and many M4 carbines and the weapon cannot fire this way due to the fact that the gas tube will overheat and disallow a gas of similar temperatures to go down the gas tube once it overheats (gas goes from high to low pressure I.E. warm to cold) to cycle the weapon. And the M16 is supposed to be fired in semi-auto, and the 7.62mm is fine in this function.




SO WHY AREN'T WE DOING THIS?


Tl;DR clearly the M4 Carbine and M16 design are out dated after 42 years of use (48 years of use, really, invented long before that with it's use in Vietnam ) and basically are inferior to still cheap and reliable weapons. Even at twice the price due to the durability of the weapons they would last twice as long (the barrels 4 times as long, making the weapon in theory half the price of the M16 design) and with some simple changes (such as adding picanty rails, adding in a typical m4 type shortened stock even on use on the M249), and the fact that we spend a tiny amount of money on guns each year, the smallest amount, despite it being the main weapon fielded by idk, people, why haven't we replaced it?

Some basic questions:
1. Are politicians and businessmen just really that corrupt they'd let people die over this?
2. Can we not get out of that system even though colt does not supply weapons to us anymore after we refused their business?
3. Are people so stupid that they can't come up with good gun designs, or is money and political pressures too much?
4. Do you think that a bull-pup version of the XM8 with a cobalt chrome polygonal barrel would be a good idea?
5. What are your opinions on the subject?
The military to my knowledge has been adding a few weapons and fielding several over in the middle east for trials. Who knows how long these test periods will take before they choose to standardize anything. The Israelis have a rifle they have been working on that I seen on Future Weapons. Many countries use old rifles or updated versions of them and many use our M16 and M4 rifles. I have never messed with them I have shot an AR a few times I personally own an AK47. I would like an M14 I prefer a bigger round. I recently shot my fathers new M1 Paratrooper and liked it a lot.

The military has a long history of choosing cheaper tools because of the price. I own a Beretta 92FS I know the military had issues with the M9 but many were upset with the 9mm vs .45. I like my 9mm but seen no reason to stop using the 1911s.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Wolf Nightshade
The military to my knowledge has been adding a few weapons and fielding several over in the middle east for trials. Who knows how long these test periods will take before they choose to standardize anything. The Israelis have a rifle they have been working on that I seen on Future Weapons. Many countries use old rifles or updated versions of them and many use our M16 and M4 rifles. I have never messed with them I have shot an AR a few times I personally own an AK47. I would like an M14 I prefer a bigger round. I recently shot my fathers new M1 Paratrooper and liked it a lot.

The military has a long history of choosing cheaper tools because of the price. I own a Beretta 92FS I know the military had issues with the M9 but many were upset with the 9mm vs .45. I like my 9mm but seen no reason to stop using the 1911s.


Herm...

Yeah, but it would in theory be cheaper. ._.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Tl;DR


Clearly the M4 Carbine and M16 design are out dated after 42 years of use (48 years of use, really, invented long before that with it's use in Vietnam ) and basically are inferior to still cheap and reliable weapons- it was only a result of colt's evilness that it was pushed forward and butchered from the design of Eugene Stoner. Even at twice the price due to the durability of the weapons they would last twice as long (the barrels 4 times as long, making the weapon in theory half the price of the M16 design) and with some simple changes (such as adding picanty rails, adding in a typical m4 type shortened stock even on use on the M249), and the fact that we spend a tiny amount of money on guns each year, the smallest amount, despite it being the main weapon fielded by idk, people, why haven't we replaced it?

Some basic questions:
1. Are politicians and businessmen just really that corrupt they'd let people die over this?
2. Can we not get out of that system even though colt does not supply weapons to us anymore after we refused their business?
3. Are people so stupid that they can't come up with good gun designs, or is money and political pressures too much?
4. Do you think that a bull-pup version of the XM8 with a cobalt chrome polygonal barrel would be a good idea?
5. What are your opinions on the subject?
Despite history and specs on certain weapons - its still remained a life rule of the military.


A weapon is as only good as the soldier.

Lethality does not lie within the caliber but the strategy and mind it is placed under. Its imperfections and perks are suppose to be honed and mastered by the soldier holding it already.

If something jams and you can't get it out or know how to fix it? Its on you. I don't care what anyone says - it should be common sense to any soldier.


Not to mention, the M4 and M16 have gone under many different changes and are not as badly produced now. I dont hold loyalty to such weapons for the simple fact that anyone can be re-trained or learn more on them or any other different weapon. Some other brands aside from your regular American Colt have produced some really reliable and very mean M4/M16 copies.


Why the military wont change it? Because theyre a bunch of cheap bastards and ever since the beginning of war - its always been the lowest bidder who had made our gear.

Make best with what you got really. Even with the best weapons and gear, it really does not make much of a difference out in the field - especially if we still have things like artillery, air support, the Navy and Airforce.
Suicidesoldier#1
Wolf Nightshade
The military to my knowledge has been adding a few weapons and fielding several over in the middle east for trials. Who knows how long these test periods will take before they choose to standardize anything. The Israelis have a rifle they have been working on that I seen on Future Weapons. Many countries use old rifles or updated versions of them and many use our M16 and M4 rifles. I have never messed with them I have shot an AR a few times I personally own an AK47. I would like an M14 I prefer a bigger round. I recently shot my fathers new M1 Paratrooper and liked it a lot.

The military has a long history of choosing cheaper tools because of the price. I own a Beretta 92FS I know the military had issues with the M9 but many were upset with the 9mm vs .45. I like my 9mm but seen no reason to stop using the 1911s.


Herm...

Yeah, but it would in theory be cheaper. ._.


What would be cheaper? In my opinion the government should take the best money can buy but watching things on military gun history it seems many times or at least several the military had chosen a cheaper weapon. The Israelis are working with the Tavor rifle it seems to be very accurate. I wouldn't doubt that we stay with what we got fort a long while.
1. The M16A2 does not support any under barrel grenade launcher. Its the M16A4 that has the ability to attach a M203 grenade launcher.
2. The M4 is taking over for the M16 variants. They're slowly being phased out. They have several advantages over the M16 family. Namely retractable buttstock, rails to mount ACOGS, broomsticks, etc. It takes the 5.56 and is fully compatible with what we already have. Which leads to the next point.
3. Training is a huge part. Basic rifle operations, cleaning, safety is taught in bootcamp. If we change completely to a new weapon system, we need to train every person on it. The estimated cost of training is about $2,500 per recruit. Add the cost of retraining to every active duty and reserve component member, the cost get way higher than just the cost of the rifle itself. Now, the cost dont end just right there. Specialize storage, service, and maintainence equipment needs to be updated as well. The armory would need to acquire the proper equipment to handle the new weapons.
4. The M249 is a SAW or LMG. They are in completely different leagues as the M16 family. The only thing they share is they both fire the 5.56 and the M249 can accept a standard M16 magazine.
5. The XM8's problem was with overheating. Its internal barrel was a great idea to shorten the weapon, however what it also did was start to melt the handguards due to the heat. The XM8 had other problems as well, including weight.
6. Finally, my own personal opinion on the subject matter. The M4 currently suffice for the combat situation we're in. Iraq/Afghanistan both are fought in urban as well as desert and mountain climates. The short buttstock is ideal for house to house clearing. The magazine wont jam as long as you dont load the full 30 rounds (28 is ideal). The ACOG that most have on it comes with a 4x magnification, just enough for the combat we're seeing right now.
Yes, we do eventually need some change as the design is fairly old, however now I dont think is the time, not when we're in the middle of a war, and we have a competent enough weapon already.


1:

Does it not appear that political office holders have very little interest in the 'technical' affairs of the military? If you take a look at our present time... there is not a great amount of executive attention given in advancing the general army's equipment standard - Reason? Largely because there isn't a dire 'need' for such effort.

A famous Winston Churchill quote is apt: "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they've tried everything else.''


The whole of the U.S armed forces (Notably the Infantry sect/Right now) are not an institution who are at constant war - there was such a period of activity in the Second World War and a few years after, and during that era, weapons research and implementation were highly prioritized since there was a more signifcant demand from superiors within and without the ground Corp's.

Live combat being participated in by Americans today can be found primarily in the Mid-East, but the hostiles there are usually solely unorthadox fighters, who hardly risk putting themselves in an arm wrestling match with a force much bigger then they are. Incidents of massive man vs man are rare to account.

I would not absolutely blame politicians adventing from greed for this lingering situation. After the U.S sought to modernize their standard rifle program during the Vietnam War, they wrapped their arms around a pretty 'bad' tar baby and 'continued to squeeze'.

After Nam became history, there were no other conflicts fought that would have proceeded to pressure executives to improve their weapon systems, which then would have possibly given the U.S an adequate gun. Instead there only a few subsequent moments in the past (all spaced far apart, and very low intensive) where the U.S began to slowly modify and correct their defunct M series, simply fixing it gradually to meet the needs of persistent users who stated requests. Now the U.S is stuck to a low par weapon which is surpassed by most foreign models.

If in the future, America somehow gets into a ground war with China/Russia/Korea/Extraterrestial Alien Invasion Force, and if such war procedes to continues for A VERY LONG TIME, where MANY U.S SOLDIERS BECOME K.I.A ... then we might see change. But at the moment... Incentive is like the economy... very dead.

2: INCENTIVE!!!



3: INCENTI- No... People are not stupid, we should not overgeneralize - people who wear suits and wear the proveribal crowns on their heads are stupid.




4: The XM8 was a beautiful weapon that I wished Santa would have given me. Although I don't like most bullpup styled weapons since most are not left hand friendly. But if its like an Steyr AUG, or a FN2000 ...YES.

Suicidesoldier#1

Some basic questions:
1. Are politicians and businessmen just really that corrupt they'd let people die over this?
If you've seen the pricetags on pointless "lowest bidder" items, you'd know the answer is a resounding 'yes.' It's usually not even the big name defense contractors who compete with only one another and maintain a credible market for the simple fact that they produce quality and must maintain it for a multitude of reasons. No one cares if the toilet paper the military is forced to use is better used as... well, I don't see a purpose for coarse incredibly weak and thin material. You have to quad-fold it for the thickness of two-ply.
Suicidesoldier#1

2. Can we not get out of that system even though colt does not supply weapons to us anymore after we refused their business?
It's like buying a new car (except a crapton of them), do you really want to switch over when you know how to drive the old one, have all the parts for it, and an entire system designated to working with it?
Suicidesoldier#1

3. Are people so stupid that they can't come up with good gun designs, or is money and political pressures too much?
I do love Bushmaster. Heckler and Koch does pretty good work, too. Thing is that politicians want pretty, then the military gets the final say and usually gets handed a piece of crap high-tech looking gun that work better as a movie prop loaded with blanks and just throws the book at the weapon until they get something useful, because they don't want a repeat of what happened with the M16A1 when they first got it.
Suicidesoldier#1

4. Do you think that a bull-pup version of the XM8 with a cobalt chrome polygonal barrel would be a good idea?
It'd be a good idea if you can make it light.
My opinion is use one of the many Bushmaster designs. Reliable. Powerful. Not impressive in appearance, as any untrained eye thinks they are M4s or M16s, but they can take a beating harder than an AK and still outperform most other rifles.
Suicidesoldier#1

5. What are your opinions on the subject?
TAR-21 Tavor.

Fact of the matter is that new M16A4s aren't actually all that horrible and do the job well.
Aporeia's avatar

Obsessive Sage

I think the last thing this country needs is to spend more money on the military than we already are.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Machine_Gun_Blues
Despite history and specs on certain weapons - its still remained a life rule of the military.


A weapon is as only good as the soldier.

Lethality does not lie within the caliber but the strategy and mind it is placed under. Its imperfections and perks are suppose to be honed and mastered by the soldier holding it already.

If something jams and you can't get it out or know how to fix it? Its on you. I don't care what anyone says - it should be common sense to any soldier.


Not to mention, the M4 and M16 have gone under many different changes and are not as badly produced now. I dont hold loyalty to such weapons for the simple fact that anyone can be re-trained or learn more on them or any other different weapon. Some other brands aside from your regular American Colt have produced some really reliable and very mean M4/M16 copies.


Why the military wont change it? Because theyre a bunch of cheap bastards and ever since the beginning of war - its always been the lowest bidder who had made our gear.

Make best with what you got really. Even with the best weapons and gear, it really does not make much of a difference out in the field - especially if we still have things like artillery, air support, the Navy and Airforce.


What if we went into combat wielding machetes?

Or if our commanders sent us in wave after wave with misshapen spears to down the enemies trench while they had machine guns?


And slaughtered millions?

Would that be on the soldier?


Wait, whenever a weapon jams it's his fault?

Fo real? O_o
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

False Dichotomy
I think the last thing this country needs is to spend more money on the military than we already are.


Unless it would make us more effective.

More effective = winning wars faster = less money spent.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Skyburn
Suicidesoldier#1

Some basic questions:
1. Are politicians and businessmen just really that corrupt they'd let people die over this?
If you've seen the pricetags on pointless "lowest bidder" items, you'd know the answer is a resounding 'yes.' It's usually not even the big name defense contractors who compete with only one another and maintain a credible market for the simple fact that they produce quality and must maintain it for a multitude of reasons. No one cares if the toilet paper the military is forced to use is better used as... well, I don't see a purpose for coarse incredibly weak and thin material. You have to quad-fold it for the thickness of two-ply.
Suicidesoldier#1

2. Can we not get out of that system even though colt does not supply weapons to us anymore after we refused their business?
It's like buying a new car (except a crapton of them), do you really want to switch over when you know how to drive the old one, have all the parts for it, and an entire system designated to working with it?
Suicidesoldier#1

3. Are people so stupid that they can't come up with good gun designs, or is money and political pressures too much?
I do love Bushmaster. Heckler and Koch does pretty good work, too. Thing is that politicians want pretty, then the military gets the final say and usually gets handed a piece of crap high-tech looking gun that work better as a movie prop loaded with blanks and just throws the book at the weapon until they get something useful, because they don't want a repeat of what happened with the M16A1 when they first got it.
Suicidesoldier#1

4. Do you think that a bull-pup version of the XM8 with a cobalt chrome polygonal barrel would be a good idea?
It'd be a good idea if you can make it light.
My opinion is use one of the many Bushmaster designs. Reliable. Powerful. Not impressive in appearance, as any untrained eye thinks they are M4s or M16s, but they can take a beating harder than an AK and still outperform most other rifles.
Suicidesoldier#1

5. What are your opinions on the subject?
TAR-21 Tavor.

Fact of the matter is that new M16A4s aren't actually all that horrible and do the job well.


You could just make it so the ergonomics are the same as the M16- blam, same training.

Training in Basic is about a week, in the marines with 13 weeks of training instead of 9, it's still like a week. ._.

Also it really doesn't take that much to be trained in with the weapon, you can generally pick up a new weapon and go. Actually, most our combat troops in Iraq had multiple specialties and were cross trained in weapons like the M249, M4 carbine, M16, M203 etc. primarily because they were combat MOS guys. It wasn't a full scale invasion so it was just career foot soldiers more or less. The type of guys you might send into Grenada or some other small scale invasion.


As well, you could in theory take any firing system and put it into any weapon.

The only drawbacks are how long does the firing mechanism sit back- in the gas of the M16, a lot- a lot a lot, actually so much that a bullpup weapon would only shorten the weapon by a few inches. But in the gas of short stroke gas piston designs, like the XM8, practically none at all.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

As far as price is concerned, remember though, the XM8 (just for example) had twice the life.

So if it's 2000 dollars, then compared to the M16 at 1000, then the XM8 is twice as durable and would only need to buy half the amount for the required service length, making it equal.



BUT HERE'S THE THING.The barrels are to be replaced every 5000 rounds- in the polygonal hammerforged barrels, replaced every 20,000 rounds. Each barrel is 500 dollars- so, that means an extra 1000 dollars per two guns you'd need to replace an XM8.


That would be 3000 for a full set that would equal the service length of an Xm8 at 2000. In the long run it would be cheaper. And in the middle, you'd get a more reliable and potentially accurate gun and things. Also potentially lighter weight. It's a win-win.

AS WELL! The XM8 was able to fire full auto quite well, more than the M16 which will jam after 90 rounds in a minute due to the inability of the gas to travel down a tube with the same ambient temperature or close to it (high to low pressure). 400 rounds in 5 minutes without a single jam FROM DRUM MAGAZINES. O_o

This in theory could replace the M249 of light infantry. Which in turn would be saving 2000 dollars per machine gun or 4000 per squad. That would pay for it's own cost right there! This is pretty simple stuffsz imo. ._.


Also caseless rounds.

But that *may* be a ways in the future.


As well, only like 10 million M16's style weapons have ever been created (for the military).

That entire cost would be 20 billion dollars for new weapons, out of the 800 billion dollar budget.


Over 42 years, that would be 500 million a year, or roughly 1/1600th the militaries budget for our main weapon.

And in theory, it would even be cheaper.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games