"The United States Army is looking for a better rifle. It is asking manufacturers to come up with a new weapon to replace the M4 carbine, an upgraded version of the famous M16 - the rifle carried by American soldiers for the last 50 years."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

Something designed by Hasbro this time around.

How exactly did the M16/M4 last this long? What are its strong points as a combat rifle? I ask this as a former tanker who shot an M16 exactly twice while I was in service. Where are the former grunts?

judgepacker wrote:Something designed by Hasbro this time around.

How exactly did the M16/M4 last this long? What are its strong points as a combat rifle? I ask this as a former tanker who shot an M16 exactly twice while I was in service. Where are the former grunts?

It's hung around because of the very unique sound it makes when dropped onto cement. It sounds like it has broken into a million pieces (like, say, if you dropped something made of Lego) but when picked up you find that, miraculously, it is exactly the same as before you dropped it.

Didn't you have to qualify and train with them ad nauseum in basic training?

Didn't you have to qualify and train with them ad nauseum in basic training?

No. I was one of those One-Station Unit Training guys. We didn't do separate basic and AIT. From day One our training was oriented toward making us tankers. We qualified with the .45. We shot the M16 but didn't have to qualify. We got to play infantry with them in the field.

When I went to PLDC, we had to bring a rifle, so I got one of our M16A2s and 20 round mags. The other kids laughed at me when we went to the field and they all had 30 rounders.

As a side note, when we talk about our LGC builds I have no aspirations whatsoever that it will ever be a SHTF rifle. And I don't even like the phrase SHTF.

I like it very much.

Wasn't this same thought what the S.C.A.R. program was all about? The FN SCAR could switch between different cartridges with a simple swapping of parts, including 5.56 and 7.62 NATO among many others. I'm pretty sure that the Magpul rifle was one of it's competitors. This has been being said since the introduction of the current platform, but nothing ever changes. I think that SOCOM adopted the SCAR H (7.62) into the arsenal, but they didn't feel like the version in 5.56 was enough of an improvement over the M16/M4 to be worth the resources required to fully adopt the new platform.

We'll see.

It would be absolutely awesome if the US military switched to 6.5 Grendel. Unfortunately they probably would not do so until NATO did.

judgepacker wrote:Something designed by Hasbro this time around.

How exactly did the M16/M4 last this long? What are its strong points as a combat rifle? I ask this as a former tanker who shot an M16 exactly twice while I was in service. Where are the former grunts?

Light- weight, cheap to produce ( now), and its damned hard to begin manufacturing a new weapon ( priority goes to the air force and navy... this is why the British Army fought WW2 with bolt- action rifles).
Here's hoping the next generation rifle has select fire ( no 3- round burst, please), an intermediate calibre of at least 6.5mm, and fires caseless rounds.
And NO bullpups.

judgepacker wrote:Something designed by Hasbro this time around.

How exactly did the M16/M4 last this long? What are its strong points as a combat rifle? I ask this as a former tanker who shot an M16 exactly twice while I was in service. Where are the former grunts?

Not a grunt but I do a lot of research on the matter. The M16 when it has a chromed barrel, and is made right is a good weapon system, it's accurate, and light weight, and fairly reliable if correctly maintained. It's just not the "no upkeep" rifle the AK is. I think it's a little pre-mature to start phasing it out, as our next rifle needs to be a bullpup, but from what I can tell most bullpups have crappy triggers. Fix that and they make a better rifle, like the british rifle, only without the problems.

A new caliber would also be a god send, Either the 6.5 grendel or the 6.8 SPC, are both good candidates balancing the firepower/range/accuracy issues the 5.56NATO, 7.62NATO and the 7.62x39 have.

And NO bullpups.

why? they're more powerful than their non bullpups of same length, same accuracy, only thing about them is the crappy trigger, but I haven't shot enough to say they're all crappy. Not to mention a new rifle could have integrated electronics meaning an electrically controlled trigger (1lb trigger on an assault rifle anyone?)

I think reloading would be awkward to get used to. I like the shortness of bullpup's though.

From what I hear they take getting used to but it's more of an unfamiliarity thing than a real problem.

gendoikari87 wrote: A new caliber would also be a god send, Either the 6.5 grendel or the 6.8 SPC, are both good candidates balancing the firepower/range/accuracy issues the 5.56NATO, 7.62NATO and the 7.62x39 have.

The ONLY reason for 6.8 SPC is additional power. It has more bullet drop, less range, and worse accuracy than 5.56. It's almost comparable to 7.62x39.

6.5 Grendel however could replace 5.56 AND 7.62x51 NATO. It has more range than both, more power than 5.56 and less recoil than 7.62x51. It's accurate to a phenomenal range for an "intermediate" cartridge. The magazines are also the same size as standard 5.56 AR magazines. It you extend them just slightly you can keep capacity the same.

Having 1 cartridge instead of 2 would be a fantastic money saver and logistic godsend. You could have a dedicated marksman in each squad that uses the same ammo as everyone else. Currently, marksmen have to use 7.62 NATO while everyone else is using 5.56.


Best of all, military adoption would crank up production of 6.5 Grendel a great deal, increase it's popularity and make it cheaper for everyone. Currently, Grendel brass and bullets are expensive, nevermind factory ammo ... if you can even find it.

yeah currently the grendel is still my favorite, but the 6.8 is no slouch, it might not be as good ballistically as the 5.56 but it's better than the 7.62x39. I think the 6.8 has a better chance of getting adopted just because of who makes it. I mean I think barret has a little more pull with the military than alexaner arms, I'll have to check on that though. But yeah, IMO the 6.5 is much superior to the 6.8

Having 1 cartridge instead of 2 would be a fantastic money saver and logistic godsend. You could have a dedicated marksman in each squad that uses the same ammo as everyone else. Currently, marksmen have to use 7.62 NATO while everyone else is using 5.56.

Exactly what kind of ranges are we talking about here, I wouldn't really call any of the four true sniper rounds, about 300 yards is bout what most of the people I know can do reliably, any farther and you really do need the .308.... err sorry, i'm a civilian, 7.62NATO.

gendoikari87 wrote:yeah currently the grendel is still my favorite, but the 6.8 is no slouch, it might not be as good ballistically as the 5.56 but it's better than the 7.62x39. I think the 6.8 has a better chance of getting adopted just because of who makes it. I mean I think barret has a little more pull with the military than alexaner arms, I'll have to check on that though. But yeah, IMO the 6.5 is much superior to the 6.8

Having 1 cartridge instead of 2 would be a fantastic money saver and logistic godsend. You could have a dedicated marksman in each squad that uses the same ammo as everyone else. Currently, marksmen have to use 7.62 NATO while everyone else is using 5.56.

Exactly what kind of ranges are we talking about here, I wouldn't really call any of the four true sniper rounds, about 300 yards is bout what most of the people I know can do reliably, any farther and you really do need the .308.... err sorry, i'm a civilian, 7.62NATO.

I said Dedicated Marksman, not Sniper. There's a difference.

A standard infantry rifleman is not going to be good hitting targets much past 300 yards. 5.56 may be able to hit a man-sized target at 600 yards, but it's not going to reliably kill anything at that distance. A dedicated marksman fills the role in between standard rifleman and sniper. They don't need the skills and precision to hit someone at a mile or even half a mile. They do however fill that 300-1000 yard range. 7.62 NATO is currently used for that in 'Stan.

6.5 Grendel actually has a flatter trajectory than 7.62 NATO and longer range. IIRC, past 600 yards, 6.5 Grendel actually has MORE power than 7.62 NATO despite being a smaller cartridge with a lighter bullet.

While for me, 600 yards is a really really really tough shot I'd be lucky to hit, for a good marksmen, it's actually somewhat easy. For excellent marksmen, they would call 600 yards midrange.


We currently have a problem in Afghanistan. The ranges our guys are being engaged at is pretty long in many situations. Iraq it was mostly urban combat. Afghanistan however they are being attacked in mountainous terrain. While the AK is horrible at those ranges, FPKs, PSLs, Dragonuvs, and Mosin Nagants have no trouble with those kind of distances. 5.56 doesn't handle those distances well, and M4s REALLY don't handle those distances well. In many cases, not only are we unable to engage the enemy with M4s, but any SAW chambered for 5.56 is unable to reliably engage them as well. This makes it pretty much impossible to engage in effective suppressive fire.

The solution the army is employing currently is to outfit platoons with Dedicated Marksmen equipped with upgraded M14s firing 7.62NATO. This still doesn't solve the problem of lack of suppressive fire at those ranges though.


If everyone was equipped with 6.5 Grendel, even out of an M4 our troops could unleash effective suppressive fire at 600 yard range. Due to the high BC of the Grendel bullet, less energy is lost out of an M4 barrel than 5.56 loses out of an M4 barrel. Heck, the only difference between a rifleman and a marksman would be length of barrel. The same platform could be used. Engaging at 600 yards would be similar to engaging at 100 yards. The biggest difference would be that rifleman alone would have a high likelihood of scoring kills or at least hits at 100 yards, whereas the marksmen would be required to score hits at 600 yards.

Wow, Thanks for the info, definitely an interesting read. I can't imagine hitting anything beyon 200 yards under combat conditions myself and I haven't even been in the military. Now give me a benchrest with some good dials, a good calculator or better yet a TI-92, a plumb bob, laser range finder, and enough time and I can hit anything. but just point and shoot? My eyes can't focus that well.

I really like the looks of the Beretta ARX-160.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2bW0vJi83k

gendoikari87 wrote:

judgepacker wrote:

And NO bullpups.

why? they're more powerful than their non bullpups of same length, same accuracy, only thing about them is the crappy trigger, but I haven't shot enough to say they're all crappy. Not to mention a new rifle could have integrated electronics meaning an electrically controlled trigger (1lb trigger on an assault rifle anyone?)

Try shooting one in the prone with a 30 round magazine in it. It's like a situation where an angry rhinoceros who has just had a hard day's work at the swamp and has caught you in bed with his wife and smoking his cigars- awkward.
Now, if they get innovative and put the magazine somewhere else- like on top like the FN PS 90 or, better, on top with caseless ammo like the G.11, then it would be an improvement.

the comedian wrote: Try shooting one in the prone with a 30 round magazine in it. It's like a situation where an angry rhinoceros who has just had a hard day's work at the swamp and has caught you in bed with his wife and smoking his cigars- awkward.
Now, if they get innovative and put the magazine somewhere else- like on top like the FN PS 90 or, better, on top with caseless ammo like the G.11, then it would be an improvement.

Well in the one i'm in the process of designing the magazine is on the top. I've toyed around with a P90 feeding system that mounted to the side but that quickly got complicated. Lately though I've been forced to put the project on hold as I no longer have autocad, and school is quickly approaching and end and I really just want to focus on graduating.

gendoikari87 wrote:

the comedian wrote: Try shooting one in the prone with a 30 round magazine in it. It's like a situation where an angry rhinoceros who has just had a hard day's work at the swamp and has caught you in bed with his wife and smoking his cigars- awkward.
Now, if they get innovative and put the magazine somewhere else- like on top like the FN PS 90 or, better, on top with caseless ammo like the G.11, then it would be an improvement.

Well in the one i'm in the process of designing the magazine is on the top. I've toyed around with a P90 feeding system that mounted to the side but that quickly got complicated. Lately though I've been forced to put the project on hold as I no longer have autocad, and school is quickly approaching and end and I really just want to focus on graduating.

Make a good carbine that uses the same feeding system as the PS90, but using 9mm ammo, that works, and I'll buy one.

It was no where near completion even before I quit, All I had done was the barrel and feed mechanisim (which actually mounted over the barrel) actually drawn, the concept for the hammer (which never go drawn) was that it would mount in tandem in vertical space with the magazine. All of this so that the end of the magazine well would be the butt of the rifle. As it is now, the operating mechanisms of most bull pups mount to the rear like in most gas operated and this requires space, a good bit, actually. Basically I wanted to make a rifle that was only about 5 to 6 inches longer than the barrel length.

edit: forgot to mention, I had the ammo designed as well. 6mm Caliber. Now I'm no engineer, but I am proud of the 6mm wyvern I made, I made it during my thermo class specifically for high efficiency/velocity. and to be a THV. THough I do have a TON of artistic drawings I made for friends web comics, none of which were serious designs, just cool looking weapons, because they knew I was technical and could make it look right.

Edit 2: Here's another one I made back in 9th grade, I look back at it just to see how far I've come, it still makes me laugh. Completely impractical/nonfuctional design