US Military May Be Retiring the M-16 Rifle

General Public · #1 11-23-2003, 10:35 AM

[URL=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=4&u=/ap/20031122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_goodbye_m_16]Story on Yahoo! News[/URL]

[i]Summary: It appears that in close combat, the M-16 is showing some weaknesses and some of the problems incurred in Vietnam are occurring again in Iraq. Soldiers have complained the weapon is too cumbersome, especially when travelling in Humvees. The sandy/dusty desert environment has caused it to jam, harking back to its introduction in the jungle environment of Vietnam.[/i]

I think it's time for a replacement weapon to be found. After all, it's nearly 40 years old (despite upgrades over the years). It's nowhere near as durable as the Soviet-designed AK-47 and brethen, although it is much more accurate at distance.

There are prototypes for the new OICW the military will use. Called the XM-29, it uses the same NATO round (5.56mm) as the M-16, but has a 20mm fragmentation grenade launche built in (optional on M-16s).

[URL=http://world.guns.ru/assault/as40-e.htm]Picture of a prototype OICW[/URL]

The new XM-29 will feature some kind of enhanced scope, which will undoubtedly have a night vision sight and give the soldier the ability to look around corners without exposing himself to fire. Seeing as it has a shorter barrel, the weapon appears to be expressly designed for close combat/short range scenarios.

I guess the military knows what it's doing, but one thing I would have adapted is used in the current British assault rifle, [URL=http://world.guns.ru/assault/as22-e.htm]the L85A2.[/URL] It utilizes a [b]bullpup[/b] design which I find very smart. Instead of the firing chamber being ahead of the trigger, it is behind it. The entire receiver is moved back into the stock. This results in a smaller rifle but barrel length is not compromised much (if at all).

Okay, that's just my take on it. I'm sure the Pentagon is much more in the know than I am. But it would be nice to see an assault rifle as hardcore as the AK-47/74.

Rebel2000 · #2 11-23-2003, 11:01 AM

Guns are cool.

General Public · #3 11-23-2003, 01:10 PM

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rebel2000 [/i]
[B]Guns are cool. [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree. I think soon I am going to get an AR-15, which is virtually identical to the M-16, but is only semi-automatic.

Skye · #4 11-23-2003, 01:58 PM

guns are cool? this is a scary thread. i wouldn't want to live near you...

I don't they are cool at all. They have one purpose, and that is definatly not cool.

The people who will flame me now (pro-guns people)will be the people who support the death penalty for that sniper guy. Ever thought without guns, that wouldn't have happened?

Guns should be banned from all civillians everywhere, no exceptions. Especially for "sport" (read killing helpless animals).

Natelox · #5 11-23-2003, 02:13 PM

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rebel2000 [/i]
[B]Guns are cool. [/B][/QUOTE]

Their purpose certinly is not. Guns were designed for one reason and one reason only, to kill. I find it disgusting you find such things intresting. Perhaps you would like to stand on the receving end of the gun's purpose, perhaps then you might think differently.

CoasterJunkie · #6 11-23-2003, 02:32 PM

[QUOTE]Guns should be banned from all civillians everywhere, no exceptions.[/QUOTE]

There's a slight problem with that. Sure, all the law-abiding citizens will not have them, but the people who want one can still get one. If someone is determined to kill someone, they won't care if they have to break one more law in order to get a gun. I'm from Iowa, and I think a lot of the farmers around here would agree that a gun of some sort is vital for what they do, which is killing helpless animals that are hurting their crops or animals. Now, I don't live on a farm, but we still need guns at my place because of beavers and rabbits coming in and taking out our trees. We also hunt snakes around our house since we have ducks and geese that nest here, and the snakes et thier eggs. There is no subsitute for a gun in these cases.

I will also say that there is more reason to own a gun than just for killing things. We have one room in our house dedicated to firearms. We have over 40 guns of various sorts in there, ranging from revolvers to an AK-47 and an AR-15. The reason, we collect them. We have weapons from every side of every major conflict since WWI. My dad recently had to spend $1,300 to get a pre-ban M1A (civilian M-14, the US rifle before the M-16). He wanted it because that is what he carried while he was in the Marines.

We also target shoot, and it's hard to do that if we don't have guns. We don't go hunting (except for beavers, rabbits, and snakes). This is just a way to relax and clam down. It also builds concentration and eye-hand cooridination. Shooting is one of the few things my dad and I have in common.

I can understand why people think guns should be banned, but it won't help. It will only keep people like my dad and myself from owning weapons and the people who you don't want to have them will still have them. Most guns used in crimes today are all ready purchased illegally, so when someone needs one to defend themselves, they can't. It's been proven that gun ownership can actually decrease violent crimes like murder, rape, and assault. 98% of the time all the victim has to do is show the weapon and the criminal runs.

I'm not saying that everyone should have guns either. People should have respect for the weapons and treat them for what they are.

Skye, I'm not trying to flame you or anything, I just wanted to present my side of the story.

As for the topic of phasing out the M-16, They are still working on that problem from what I have heard. I visited Quantico Marine base last year and was able to see some prototype rifles from the armorers there. They have a couple new varients fo the M-16 in the works so I think it will be around for a little bit yet.

I have also seen some recent pictures of the OICW and it has been slimed down quite a bit, and we'll be seeing more of it when land warrior goes out into the field (since that is what it is designed for).

birdie311 · #7 11-23-2003, 03:04 PM

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Skye [/i]
[B]guns are cool? this is a scary thread. i wouldn't want to live near you...

I don't they are cool at all. They have one purpose, and that is definatly not cool.

The people who will flame me now (pro-guns people)will be the people who support the death penalty for that sniper guy. Ever thought without guns, that wouldn't have happened?

Guns should be banned from all civillians everywhere, no exceptions. Especially for "sport" (read killing helpless animals). [/B][/QUOTE]

I have rifles that I use for competition shooting. I've never shot any living thing. I shoot at a target 100m away.

Skye · #8 11-23-2003, 03:55 PM

ok, my post was a bit simplistic:-

1) coasterjunkie, nothing wrong with collecting guns - but they should be put out of use permently as is possible and is reasonable, by blocking the barrel or however, as long as it can't be used, it is an ornament, of course that is not dangerous

2) yes people will still get hold of them illegally - as happens here a lot - but stoping the masses having them is a good start i think.

3) Competition shooting could be a good reason i suppose - clay pigeon shooting and things like that - but that is a handfull of people who what to shoot spining plates.

Your right about defence - thats a big issue here right now, because of a farmowner who shot a burgular. Yes, its because the police are useless. But is this how we should live? Or should we vote in politicians who can actually run a country properly?

SFGadvKing · #9 11-23-2003, 04:13 PM

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Skye [/i]
[B]Guns should be banned from all civillians everywhere, no exceptions.[/B][/QUOTE]

marijuana is banned from all civillians and look how many people have that. banning guns wont make a differance.

those new guns look really cool. they look a lot more futuristic than the m-16.

Skye · #10 11-23-2003, 04:30 PM

thats wrong because its made a difference here; yes in inner cities crime is still bad, but MOST people don't have access to them. Banning them does cut crime because it seriously reduces their availability; its brings people who have commited other crimes but carry illegal guns off the streets; and it reduces the temptation/likelyness/accidental use of them by otherwise law abiding people. I'm interested to see your response.

SFGadvKing · #11 11-23-2003, 07:31 PM

ok of course it will make some differance but as other people already said, if someone is willing to shoot someone, they will break the law to get hold of a gun. the bad thing is about banning guns is that the bad guys will have gund while the good guys wont have guns and that just isnt good. (yeah the police can still have guns but a lot of times civilians are the ones who stop criminals)

Kraken · #12 11-23-2003, 07:43 PM

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Skye [/i]
[B]guns are cool? this is a scary thread. i wouldn't want to live near you...

I don't they are cool at all. They have one purpose, and that is definatly not cool.

The people who will flame me now (pro-guns people)will be the people who support the death penalty for that sniper guy. Ever thought without guns, that wouldn't have happened?

Guns should be banned from all civillians everywhere, no exceptions. Especially for "sport" (read killing helpless animals). [/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Natelox[/i]
[B]Their purpose certinly is not. Guns were designed for one reason and one reason only, to kill. I find it disgusting you find such things intresting. Perhaps you would like to stand on the receving end of the gun's purpose, perhaps then you might think differently.[/b][/QUOTE]

[B]HURRAY FOR ONE-SIDE POINTS OF VIEWS BASED EXCLUSIVLY ON STRONG EMOTIONS AND GENERALIZATIONS![/B]

Now can we please talk about, you know, the topic?

Now the XM-29 is very interesting- two barrels, two magazines, and that boxy scope make it look very strange, though I'm guessing the duel caliber design would probably be very effective.

birdie311 · #13 11-23-2003, 08:02 PM

Don't they have some sort of thing on that gun that allows for a range to be set, then a bullet is shot and explodes at the set range?

TopGun77 · #14 11-23-2003, 08:24 PM

I find it quite disturbing that people know so much about guns. Why would a non-military civillian need to know so much about them?

birdie311 · #15 11-23-2003, 08:31 PM

Why would a non-maintenance worker need to know so much about rollercoasters?