The Marines are slowly saying goodbye to the M16 rifle

the_shootist said:
If you need to rely on your bayonet skills in battle, chances are your SOL anyway
Click to expand...

1. Read the whole thread. In Iraq, 20 British soldiers won a battle against 5 to 1 odds because they chose to attack with bayonets.
2. Fewer options is not a better option.
3. SOL never means surrender options before the fight even begins.
My good friend Tom, an old school Marine, who recently died, always ended his phone call with these words. Never surrender
I think that I said this once before in a thread. There's to much quit happening.
 
basic bayonet training is easy. It's like a day and its one of the few days thats not totally gay at basic. Why it's gone is beyond me.
 
Skysoldier said:
All this talk about weight is moot if you have to hump your own water.
Click to expand...

I would contend that Soldiers humping their own water puts even more necessity on reducing weight elsewhere. Water weighs what it weighs and that's not going to change anytime soon, so we can't reduce that. But if we can reduce weight elsewhere, then that makes for a more combat effective Soldier.



mark056 said:
...

While I suspect that the M4 will prove to be quite handy and perhaps the best manifestation of a very mature AR technology and perhaps the best application of the PDW concept to date, ...
Click to expand...

But the M4 isn't a PDW concept. Sure, a tank or Bradley crew is much better off with an M4 vs an M16, but that doesn't make it PDW. It's still very effective as a primary weapon system.

Where I have concerns is the classic thinking of always preparing for the last war. We have to face the fact that we just might have to engage a linear threat on a conventional battlefield where we might have to reach out and touch lol someone. Although the M4 can do it, the M14 can do it a whole lot better and it is for this reason that one hopes that out stockpiles of these rifles remain in strategic reserve. Certainly enough were pulled and refurbished for Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

That's the thing though. Using the M4 isn't preparing for the last war. A linear and conventional battlefield doesn't automatically mean wide open expanses. The M4 would have been a formidable weapon in both theaters of WWII, probably in Korea, in Vietnam, in Panama and Grenada, in Somalia etc etc... The only area where it's not more effective than a full size rifle is in wide open terrain. But in those instances, Soldiers have crew served weapons, Mk48s and SDMs anyway. Each member of a fire team doesn't need to be able to reach out to 1000 yards. The fact is that most of the inhabited world is covered in either forests, farms, or urban/suburban terrain. And as time moves on, urban/suburban areas will only increase. The M4 is much better in all those areas than the M16.

I will say one caveat regarding future conflicts and the M4 still being better: The Arctic. The arctic circle will become a hot spot in the not too distant future(50 years?). Already, Russia is amassing new units for the arctic and rebuilding and constructing new infrastructure and facilities. The Scandinavian nations are responding in kind and starting to increase military funding for the arctic. Canada and the US seem to be a bit behind the curve, but we'll get there. That untapped and oil rich area has VERY murky borders which are still in contention. And the wide open expanses of that entire region would make it worthwhile to re institute battle rifles as the main weapon system should a serious conflict erupt there.

And I hate to burst bubbles, but the M14 really isn't a great battle rifle in modern times. For one thing, it doesn't hold its zero well at all. Though this may be improved with modern stocks and bedding. I think it's time to stop trying to put lipstick on a pig and retire those for good. It would be wonderful if they could be converted to semi-auto only and sold by the CMP. I would also love to see each squad equipped with one M110 or Scar 17 as an SDM rifle.
 
Last edited:
We can agree to disagree on the PDW vs the MBR concept and what class of weapon constitutes what, but you are absolutely spot on with regard to the Arctic and the geopolitical implications and the viability of the M14 (I wouldn't have a problem if the AR10 became part of theater inventory but I don't see that happening and I maintain that something in 7.62 is better than nothing in 7.62 and the M14 isn't as bad as you want to make it out to be especially with a modern rebedded stock and optics). I'm not going to denigrate your experience one iota but I'm not going to drink the doctrinal Kool aid of a current leadership that wants to reduce the Regular Army to the same manning levels of 1940 either.

I will say this having attended two national level conferences sponsored by the .gov in the last 8 months and attended by people in the .mil, maritime industry, and representatives of friendly northern tier nations and everything you say is true. The Northwest Passage is reality, ships regularly sail it bypassing traditional trade routes and port cities. Next year Norwegian Cruise Lines initiates the first cruise from Anchorage to NYC. Russia and China are racing to exploit new oil and LNG fields in the Arctic, and Bering Seas as well as the North Pacific. I will say that there is grave concern among some of the leadership in the Navy and Coast Guard about what you say, and I base this on first hand information. Not to hijack this thread but the new theater of operations emerging may be far from the sandy deserts of the Middle East and we will need weapons systems capable of operating in that environment. Of that I have no doubt. We are on the same sheet with regard to that aspect of your post and you are spot on IMO.
 
Last edited:
PappyM3 said:
I will say one caveat regarding future conflicts and the M4 still being better: The Arctic. The arctic circle will become a hot spot in the not too distant future(50 years?). Already, Russia is amassing new units for the arctic and rebuilding and constructing new infrastructure and facilities. The Scandinavian nations are responding in kind and starting to increase military funding for the arctic. Canada and the US seem to be a bit behind the curve, but we'll get there. That untapped and oil rich area has VERY murky borders which are still in contention. And the wide open expanses of that entire region would make it worthwhile to re institute battle rifles as the main weapon system should a serious conflict erupt there.
Click to expand...

Air power / indirect fire will make up for short barrels in open areas. gone are the days of extended long range rifle duels.

You get into a fire fight at long distance, be careful about it, radio in the area where the fire is coming in and have it bombed. People aren't going to throw rounds at each other in the arctic at 600m+ for prolonged periods of time.
 
M60 said:
1. Read the whole thread. In Iraq, 20 British soldiers won a battle against 5 to 1 odds because they chose to attack with bayonets.
2. Fewer options is not a better option.
3. SOL never means surrender options before the fight even begins.
My good friend Tom, an old school Marine, who recently died, always ended his phone call with these words. Never surrender
I think that I said this once before in a thread. There's to much quit happening.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected sir!
 
Dench said:
Air power / indirect fire will make up for short barrels in open areas. gone are the days of extended long range rifle duels.

You get into a fire fight at long distance, be careful about it, radio in the area where the fire is coming in and have it bombed. People aren't going to throw rounds at each other in the arctic at 600m+ for prolonged periods of time.
Click to expand...

We've become very privileged in having air dominance for the past half century or so. That won't necessarily be the case and Infantry won't always have air support or artillery available. Who knows what kind of combat will emerge when you can see your enemy out to the horizon and don't have any attack aviation, CAS, or artillery assets on hand. Though I do think that there would be a lot more use of mechanized units.
 
PappyM3 said:
We've become very privileged in having air dominance for the past half century or so. That won't necessarily be the case and Infantry won't always have air support or artillery available. Who knows what kind of combat will emerge when you can see your enemy out to the horizon and don't have any attack aviation, CAS, or artillery assets on hand. Though I do think that there would be a lot more use of mechanized units.
Click to expand...

I'd agree on that too. Given our dwindling resources air support is not a given. Higher priorities for limited resources will determine who gets what. It's already happened.
 
If the progressives are right, and we should treat everyone equally.....and they have so much confidence that the world can live in harmony, why do we need a military at all? Imagine how much money we could save if we dismantled the military, destroyed all our weapons and ammunition and all could live in peace and good will in the world? What could possibly go wrong?
 
30Mauser said:
My son is at Parris Island now and I look forward to hearing all about his two weeks of marksmanship training! As I understand it, they're still using the M16 there.
Click to expand...

Normally training units are the last to receive weapons upgrades. That seems counterintuitive but generally true. It will be years before the M16 is phased out of the inventory with training units and reserve units most likely being the last to be upgraded.
 
Didn't that HK make it's way in at one point but went through testing and there were issues with it?
 
je25ff said:
Ahh right. The rifle that can't hit the side of a barn at 200m when the barrel gets hot..
Click to expand...

Hey, when someone pulls his 18 wheeler to your loading dock, twirls his mustache and tells you "ehhhhyy I got zome very very goot steel here, I'll zell it to for 1/2 ze price of your current stock.. will make you guns shoot exceptionally well, you will not tell the difference ."

You don't just say no...
 
The good thing about my beloved Corps is that it takes them decades to do any changes, preferring to make do with tried and tested systems, nothing is a snap change. I have never shot the m4 so I really cant say anything against it I do know the M16 served me well out at longer distances... hampered only by the 556 round itself, but if you put one to the head works just as well as a .50 lol
 
PappyM3 said:
I would contend that Soldiers humping their own water puts even more necessity on reducing weight elsewhere. Water weighs what it weighs and that's not going to change anytime soon, so we can't reduce that. But if we can reduce weight elsewhere, then that makes for a more combat effective Soldier.





But the M4 isn't a PDW concept. Sure, a tank or Bradley crew is much better off with an M4 vs an M16, but that doesn't make it PDW. It's still very effective as a primary weapon system.



That's the thing though. Using the M4 isn't preparing for the last war. A linear and conventional battlefield doesn't automatically mean wide open expanses. The M4 would have been a formidable weapon in both theaters of WWII, probably in Korea, in Vietnam, in Panama and Grenada, in Somalia etc etc... The only area where it's not more effective than a full size rifle is in wide open terrain. But in those instances, Soldiers have crew served weapons, Mk48s and SDMs anyway. Each member of a fire team doesn't need to be able to reach out to 1000 yards. The fact is that most of the inhabited world is covered in either forests, farms, or urban/suburban terrain. And as time moves on, urban/suburban areas will only increase. The M4 is much better in all those areas than the M16.

I will say one caveat regarding future conflicts and the M4 still being better: The Arctic. The arctic circle will become a hot spot in the not too distant future(50 years?). Already, Russia is amassing new units for the arctic and rebuilding and constructing new infrastructure and facilities. The Scandinavian nations are responding in kind and starting to increase military funding for the arctic. Canada and the US seem to be a bit behind the curve, but we'll get there. That untapped and oil rich area has VERY murky borders which are still in contention. And the wide open expanses of that entire region would make it worthwhile to re institute battle rifles as the main weapon system should a serious conflict erupt there.

And I hate to burst bubbles, but the M14 really isn't a great battle rifle in modern times. For one thing, it doesn't hold its zero well at all. Though this may be improved with modern stocks and bedding. I think it's time to stop trying to put lipstick on a pig and retire those for good. It would be wonderful if they could be converted to semi-auto only and sold by the CMP. I would also love to see each squad equipped with one M110 or Scar 17 as an SDM rifle.
Click to expand...

Except for maybe parts kits - minus the receiver - I don't think there's a chance in hell you'll ever see M14's coming thru the CMP. The BATF considers a receiver from any gun that can go full auto to be: "once auto - always auto".

The M14 thing has been tossed around on the CMP forums quite a bit - or at least it was the last time I spent any time there, and Orest came right out and said: The chances are between slim and none that the CMP will ever see M14's or even parts.
 
je25ff said:
Maybe I'm biased, but you'd expect more from zee Germans.
Click to expand...

With a good reason for it. They build the best things out there, anything you build, the Germans will built it better. But, cutting corners is not uncommon, it's our human nature.

There's this IP phone they make, Snom, a co worker way back, got pissed off after a call with a horrible client, one day and slammed the receiver full force onto a table, the type of noise you'd hear 50 feet away.

you would expect the piece of plastic so smash to all hell.. not only it did not crack, it only needed a slight push of both pieces and it worked, not even a minor crackling noise, freakin' amazing. Since then we named it "Snom, the German phone for the short fused Italian salesmen [rofl]"

BTW, I had old 70's made phone with a nice "made is the USA" sticker on it (just to tick everyone with the new slick phones), connected to an ATA making it able to be a VoIP phone, and that thing was a tank, too. I'm sure I could have used its receiver to hammer the Snom into pieces.

So, to that I'll add, that slowly in the past 5 years I'm starting to see so much more top notch American made products, like they used to be - very well made, reliable and made right here by Americans, that is the way to go, when we'll get back there - you'll know that America is back, and of course, who's better to take the lead than the firearm industry.
 
Dench said:
The best part about all of it is the UK paid HK to fix their retard SA80.

Nothing says trust in your rifle like all your SAS men using M4 variants overseas [rofl]

I'd be pissed if I was a Brit grunt. Talk about a shit rifle you are getting stuck with.
Click to expand...

What was the problem with the sa80?
I thought they just had hk upgrade the rifles with new barrels and mounts?
 
warwickben said:
What was the problem with the sa80?
I thought they just had hk upgrade the rifles with new barrels and mounts?
Click to expand...

It weighs 9000 pounds and before HK fixed it, it was a total failure prone piece of shit.

-Mike
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Additional new caselaw affirms: the police and the courts believe cops are allowed to kill people
Replies
14
Views
308
Admin
Admin
These Are The Worst States To Be A Gun Owner In 2024
Replies
9
Views
545
Zappa
Zappa
Guess the kids running the WSJ have gone to the dark side.
Replies
6
Views
484
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
ATF new report shows FFLs are not the problem
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
SkilledSovereignty
S
SA introduces the new M2A Scout Squad Rifle
Replies
12
Views
2K
FPrice
FPrice
Back
Top Bottom