Military Question–Ground Combat-oriented. What should we look for in choosing the next infantry rifle?
In the US forces the venerable AR-15 (Colt) or M-16 has been with us for about 45 years. It has had its flaws, but has generally worked fairly well for US Marines and Army. It is lightweight, has a rapid rate of fire in full auto mode, and uses ammunition that is relatively easy to keep in supply. It has a history of jamming, but preventative maintenance can help this. Variants of the M-16 have expanded its flexibility by allowing it to be used as a grenade launcher as well as a rifle.
Obviously a rifle that is less susceptible to jamming would be desirable. What other qualities do you think ground forces need in an individual weapon?
For better or worse we have kept the M-16 since the 1960′s. Backed up by heavier machine guns it has been adequate. Frankly, I think we have kept it too long, and need a replacement. I was issued an M-16 in Vietnam, however my role didn’t include combat, so my main experience with it is maintaining it and being ready to use it. I would not have liked to go one and one against an AK-47 or similar weapon, but would have had confidence in the weapon if I was one of several people using it. Frankly, I would like to see a much better replacement for it.
A little more on why I am asking this question: I am an amateur military historian and have some knowledge of the history and uses of some types of military weapons or weapons systems. I also have a military logistics background. I have no control over what the Defense Department buys or programs in its budget. I know a great deal about the history of combat handguns, all the way back to muskets.
In World War I, the British-designed Lee-Enfield .303 was an excellent weapon, but by World War II its single bolt action was a limiting factor. The American Garand, or M1, was a better choice for American troops and this weapon served us through the Korean War as well.
Many soldiers I’ve talked to liked the descendant M14 better than the M16, but it was a heavy rifle in comparison. The M16 has given excellent service since about 1965 and replaced the M14. B.C. noted the hitting power issue. I did pick on the jamming problem. What is the best replacement for the M16?
Laser weapons or phased kinetic energy weapons are an interesting future possibility, but I don’t see them ready for procurement in the near term. The advantage of the M16 is that it is a generally proven weapon–we know its strengths and limitations.
Posted in Military Rifles | 5 Comments »
