What Will Replace the US Standard Issued Military Rifle?

14 Comments

1. N says:

   November 27, 2009 at 9:12 pm

   I just got out after 6 1/2 years as a Green Beret.

   We still use the M4 Carbine (a shorter variation of the M16).

   The M16 is a light, dependable, versatile weapon, as is the M4 Carbine.

   Bushmaster is just a civilian maker of the same thing, same round, same everything pretty much of the M16 and M4. The just call their rifles different things, but they have the same rifling, powder, and weight/size of bullet.

   I have used a couple of H&K sub-machine guns that I believe the US will be giving to certain Infantry, Cavalry Scouts, Armor crewmen, and Special Operations soldiers.

   Dont want to divulge too much, but there is also a new weapon that we were testing about 6 months ago. Its a 7.62X54 that shoots Semi-Auto, 3 round burst, Full Auto, and also has an adjustable sensitivity trigger mechanism with rail system for "long range" scope shots….All that and it weighs just a little bit less than the standard M16!
2. skidd says:

   November 27, 2009 at 9:12 pm

   idk if anything will replace the m16 anytime soon
3. U.S Hero says:

   November 27, 2009 at 9:12 pm

   I heard it is the XM8 or the Ar-15
4. .700 nitro says:

   November 27, 2009 at 9:12 pm

   There are variations of the m16 already like the m4 and other guns being tested we don’t know about in Iraq and by special forces. The military or government rarely change fast……since the m16 is still doing the job and is a light weight rifle and accurate. I do think they are looking at a new gas piston type m16 that keeps the dirt and hot gas out of the chamber which is my main beef.
5. Nicholias says:

   November 27, 2009 at 9:12 pm

   it was planned to replace it with the XM8, but the XM8 turned out to be to expensive and didn’t really even improve on our gun much.
6. Daniel says:

   November 27, 2009 at 9:12 pm

   Some HK 416’s are now in use, hopefully they end up replacing the m16/m4. They are a far better alternative.

   N – Why would we be using a Russian cartridge, when .308 and .30-06 are better rounds, more common, and already in widespread use? I have a hard time believing that the Govt would switch to an inferior and little used caliber. Are you sure it isn’t 7.62×51?
7. Qbnsizzle says:

   November 27, 2009 at 9:12 pm

   They already have all kindsa stuff other than the M16A2 that they’re using. Didn’t you see "Starship Troopers". That rifle is bad asss, but they need better ammo. It took like 300 rds to take out 1 bug. Good thing they never had to change magazines.
8. BasinBictory says:

   November 27, 2009 at 9:12 pm

   I think the most viable competitor to replace the M-4/M-16 series is the H&K 416. It’s based on the AR-15 action, similar to the M-16 rifle in terms of the placement of controls, cocking lever, etc – but it has a gas-piston system instead of the M-16’s direct impingement system. The gas piston system makes for a heavier rifle, but for a more reliable one as burnt powder doesn’t foul up the action.

   N,

   Why would the military be testing a rifle in a (antiquated) Russian caliber? 7.62×54 is the round fired in the Mosin-Nagant and the Dragunov sniper rifle. In terms of power, it’s similar to our own 7.62×51NATO round. We found out in the 1950’s that a fully-auto, or even burst-capable weapon (the M-14) firing such a powerful cartridge was NOT an efficient weapon. I have a hard time believing that the US would be researching such a concept 50 years after it was proven to be ineffective in combat. The 7.62×54 is not a round that lends itself to efficient magazine-fed, fully auto weapons designs. Furthermore, making such a weapon *lighter* would make it even more uncontrollable in fully auto fire, and less effective. If anything, the military would be researching ways to improve the effectiveness of the current 5.56mm round, possibly by going up to the 6.8×45 round. I call BS.
9. Butch C says:

   November 27, 2009 at 9:12 pm

   Phased plasma rifle in 40 megawatt range.

   Or hopefully they’ll lean towards a 30 caliber again, but something midrange in power, like the soviet 7.62×39. I’d like to see them develope something 30 caliber but in a short magnum case for intermediate suppressive fire, something belt fed. I think the new wave of military cartridges should be based on the new trend of short magnum, and super short magnum and similar cartridges, less space, smaller profile weapons, heavy firepower when needed, most likely a higher cyclic rate of fire, if they developed it right, it could be modular for mission specifics. Multi barrel applications, remote units, uav uses, really anyplace you need heavy automatic firepower but need it in a small enough package to make it worth carrying ammo for. Smaller ammo makes sense. You still get 30 caliber high power performance, but in a shorter cartridge.
10. RDG78 says:

    November 27, 2009 at 9:12 pm

    I recently read that FN has a rifle out called the SCAR which they are pushing as a replacement. This was in a recent issue of American Rifleman magazine.
11. rotorhead says:

    November 27, 2009 at 9:12 pm

    As long as the Democrats control Congress and Obama sits in the White House, don’t expect much money to be budgeted for the R&D of a new rifle for the military.

    And certainly don’t expect them to spend the money it would take to manufacture and field a new rifle on a large scale. It would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and right now, if it isn’t buying votes, it isn’t going to be spent.
12. Patrick says:

    November 27, 2009 at 9:12 pm

    Like others have said, I doubt it will be anything on a wide scale anytime soon.

    It seems the current trend is leaning toward a Gas Piston AR-style rifles (as opposed to Direct Gas Impingement).

    Certain units have been fielding the H&K 416, and as of more recently the FN SCAR, however neither of these rifles are being procured on a large scale.

    Bushmaster is pushing it’s Magpul Masada derived ACR platform (they are marketing it through the Remington Military branch however) yet have yet to fully deliver a product.

    There are no "special units" testing replacements for the standard issue rifle that we "don’t know about". Gov’t contracts are big business, and the development of future small arms is rarely kept under wraps. These arms are not produced directly by the gov’t, they’re produced by arms manufacturers that are often global entities (like HK), and if the US gov’t doesn’t want them, they’ll sell them to another gov’t that does. That’s why small arms development isn’t kept secret. That’s why we were able to follow the development of the XM8 and XM29 OICW so closely.
13. Gecko says:

    November 27, 2009 at 9:12 pm

    Read the attached article. I have no idea what rifle would be used. But I do agree with Chuck on the caliber, .243 would be perfect.

    http://www.chuckhawks.com/243_service_rifle.htm
14. Andy says:

    November 27, 2009 at 9:12 pm

    The M41A pulse rifle. Ten millimeter with over-and-under thirty millimeter pump action grenade launcher. Using the 10 millimeter explosive tip caseless, standard light armor piercing round.