the m16 as a gun is starting to become quite outdated in the world, namely in that the design that was ... okay with improvements when it was made has outdated rather fast.
What would be a good gun to replace it?
the m16 as a gun is starting to become quite outdated in the world, namely in that the design that was ... okay with improvements when it was made has outdated rather fast.
What would be a good gun to replace it?
XM8, despite the project being canceled. Shame.
Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one's definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
G36E? The P90 is a puny little thing that would make me extremely ashamed of the Armed Forces.
The P90 isn't an assault rifle, so you can easily count on it that they wont buy it... So far the most obvious candidate would be the G36, but this design is also becoming rather "outdated" so I guess a Bullpup of some kind could be the next thing. Or perhaps Barett will make a new version of the M-16?
You must have been bored to reply to this thread. The most obvious candidate would be the HK416 actually, but the US Armed Forces don't like to change their million dollar contract with Colt.
On the argument over the 5.56 and the 7.62 is completely outdated. If the 7.62 would have been an all-around better caliber, the US would have switched already a long time ago.
You need to remember, wounding someone does more damage then killing (strategically) . You shoot someone and doesn't die, it takes 2 (or 3) people out of the fight, most of the time.
1 - the wounded
another (or 2 people) - who drags his ass off the frontline.
Unless of course you are fighting with people who doesn't give a damn about the wounded, but even the most savage ones wouldn't leave their wounded.
If he is dead, then there is no rush.
I didn't make this up. I've served in the US Army.![]()
Last edited by HorseArcher; April 02, 2008 at 05:12 PM.
“The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”
—Sir William Francis Butler
Does the M-16 need replacing? What do the troops think? If the U.S did so now (and other countries that use it involved the current conflicts) wouldn't it be a little dangerous with potential teething problems and so forth. What are the options?
'When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything. '
-Emile Cammaerts' book The Laughing Prophets (1937)
Under the patronage of Nihil. So there.
I don't know. What about healthcare reform first?
Ah yes lets link unrelated issues to this especially when one factors in that r&d/production of weapons like this are (relatively) tiny and would have zero impact on issues like health care. Why fix city streets when that money could go to health care reform? Hell why did the US goverment develop the internet initially that could have went to health care back then! Why launch satellites into space, why give aid to other countries, why do anything!
That doesn't go bang
But it will probably be replaced by a bullpop design, looking at the main weapons from Germany,UK,France and others.
Aren't a lot of material used by the US armed forces somewhat old?
Not the air force but the Abraham is also 30 years old or something like that.
One big war and all of these brand new weapons will probably come out of 'nowhere'
Yeah its almost 30 years old but the M1 has gone under alot different variants of improvement over the years and its still one of the best tanks in the world. Items like tanks seem to have a very long shelf life anyway since you basically improve upon the design rather then toss it out and start from "scratch" like you do with aircraft. Leopard, M1 etc have all had improvements from their initial production and since development of heavy armor is generally slow moving compared to aircraft being "new" doesnt really mean much.