Why doesn't the M16 get replaced?

2007-01-30 16:22:39

#26

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7256|Nårvei

usmarine2007 wrote:
Varegg wrote:
RAIMIUS wrote:
1. We don't use Soviet ammo
Wouldn`t bet large amounts of money on that statement !
Ya. We use their old nukes for electricity now.

@The guy that karma`d me wondering what Soviet ammo: Maybe not in the US but 12,7 mm licenced Russian ammo have been used more than once in other NATO countries !

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2007-01-30 16:27:07

#27

l41e: Member; +677|7094

SealXo wrote:
usmarine2007 wrote:
CoronadoSEAL wrote:
good idea. ask for MORE money from a completely democratic congress.
rofl
I never said more money, theyd gain money.

just pillage the bastards AK's and issue them out.

Good luck getting NATO to bend to standardizing 7.62x39...

2007-01-30 16:27:09

#28

thtthht: maximum bullshit; +50|6776|teh alien spaceshit

I made a topic about the upcoming SCAR a while ago.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=61917
be sur to check out the video!

2007-01-30 16:39:48

#29

Kamikaze17: Over the line!; +70|7195|Mark it zero.

thtthht wrote:
I made a topic about the upcoming SCAR a while ago.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=61917
be sur to check out the video!

i forgot about that video. when you posted it youtube was doing some maintenance stuff so i forgot to look back. looks really nice!

now why cant the SCARS in SF have the grenade launchers?

2007-01-30 16:43:17

#30

DarkObsidian: Member; +6|7082|Arizona, USA

SealXo wrote:
Obviously the M16 sucks monkey balls according to the marines, pretty much same with the M4. Jamming issues and everything.

I've been watching a lot of news latly on the war and they always show marines with Ak's in hand instead of the M16....

So why doesn't the US just loot all of the AK's they get back, make them look nice, put on some rails and all, and issue them out and sell all the M16's somewhere else?

(same with RPKS>SAWS)

I'd like to start by actually asking you whether you've shot or even touched a real gun before.
I have only seen a few Marines (capitalize it out of respect) use AK-47's, the rest they were taking as inventory for weapon stash raids.
The USMC is issuing M16A3's (or A4, can't remember) to some units. I believe they started either last year, or the year before that.
The AK-47 is a nice rifle, it's economic. However, not as reliable as you'd think.
It has many flaws, one of that being it's inaccuracy and it dents the jackets when it ejects them.
Not a big issue, seeing as we use brand new ammo anyways, but still.
The thing is, M16's need to be cleaned every so often, I THINK it was 3000 rounds, I could be wrong.
Maybe it was 300? Can't remember exactly.
Anyways, point is, the sand, the climate, and the stress the M16A2 takes out there is absurd and it's performing very well considering the conditions.
Problem is, they aren't being cleaned enough.

Looting? Yea, we're a "rich kid" nation, we don't loot.
See? This is what happens, you have a shit companies like EA and DICE polluting the minds of gamers, making them think AK variants are better. RPK's blow. The M249 is much more superior.

Oh, and to whoever said that the M16 has been due for an update, yea, you're wrong.
First off, Nam began in 59'. It was only in until 75, which really isn't so much the 70's. Not a major error, but it's tarnishing your creditability.
Second, that was the M16. Not the M16A2, much has changed son, check your facts.

2007-01-30 16:45:26

#31

SoC./Omega: Member; +122|6987|Omaha, Nebraska!

SealXo wrote:
Obviously the M16 sucks monkey balls according to the marines, pretty much same with the M4. Jamming issues and everything.

I've been watching a lot of news latly on the war and they always show marines with Ak's in hand instead of the M16....

So why doesn't the US just loot all of the AK's they get back, make them look nice, put on some rails and all, and issue them out and sell all the M16's somewhere else?

(same with RPKS>SAWS)

I believe that the US is currently looking at a Israeli weapon called the Tavor, dunno if they are gonna get it from Israel and issue it but the Tavor looks really good.
IM NOT FOR SURE THOUGH
Seen here on FutureWeapons:

2007-01-30 17:04:58

#32

I.M.I Militant: We Are Not Alone In Here; +297|7165|Melbourne, Australia

because americans have to much pride to use soviet made weapons

2007-01-30 17:09:38

#33

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6914

I don't know either. The G36E pwns the M16 in pretty much everything, we should use that instead.

2007-01-30 17:10:06

#34

Commie Killer: Member; +192|6833

Ok a few things:
1. The problems suffered during Vietnam were totally fixed in the beginning of the war, the problem was that they were labeled as the "rifle that never needed cleaning", there is no such thing(at least not yet, and probably never). The barrels would rust like crazy because they were NOT chrome coated and cleaning kits were not issued.

2. It is now up to model M16A4, the Marines and Army use that as there main service rifle, though the Army has issued a lot more M4's then the M16A2 of A4.

3. If you clean your rifle every day like a good soldier would, you dont have problems, at least that is what I am hearing from the Marines and Soldiers on this forum.

BigmacK wrote:
What about reviving the XM-8 program?

It was canceled because it was not enough of a improvement over the M16 family of weapons and the cost didnt justify the mass production of them.

2007-01-30 17:10:36

#35

Naturn: Deeds, not words.; +311|7051|Greenwood, IN

They were looking at the XM8 series. They US military ordered around 500 for testing. They loved the rifle in many ways. It was lighter, easier to clean, cheaper, and comes in more variants than the M16 series. However for reasons that I don't know they canceled the projected back in October I think... Anyways it was looking to be a great rifle but they still canceled it...

2007-01-30 17:54:08

#36

Sneaky.Russian: Random Hero; +119|6767|Australia QLD

if US troops use AK's. milez as well give them humvee car bombs.

2007-01-30 22:14:09

#37

Reciprocity: Member; +721|7027|the dank(super) side of Oregon

M14. it fires a 7.62X51 nato cartridge, a rifle round. the sound of an automatic rifle would freak out insurgents. unlike the little 5.56 BB guns. they're already being recommissioned in limited quantities, as the socom M-something.

while they're at it. they should build a BAR type rifle that fires a .50cal and uses some type of recoil system. make them fear our firepower again.

2007-01-30 22:29:14

#38

mtb0minime: minimember; +2,418|7100

Haven't read anyone else's responses, but someone probably already said what I'm about to say.

AK's sub-consciously symbolize terrorism. It's the gun that all the middle easterners use (not saying all Middle Easterners are terrorists). When you think of the US, you think of a guy holding an M16, not an AK. When you think of terrorist, you think of some guy with an AK. So though the AK might be a better weapon, it'd be humiliating to say to the public, "Yeah... uhh... all this time the terrorists' guns have been better than ours so we finally decided to make the switch."

2007-01-30 22:51:25

#39

DonFck: Hibernator; +3,227|7077|Finland

AK-47. When you absolutely positively need to kill every motherf**er in the room, accept no substitute.

The AK is in all its reliability and mediocre accuracy a brilliant assault rifle. It's also shorter than the M16, which makes it easier to handle in e.g. urban combat as well as in woods/jungles. No wonder guerillas have adopted it as their own. And the 7.62mm round is just that much more powerful than a 5.56mm Nato.

I actually recommend the following derivative of the AK, SAKO RK 95 TP. A "modernized AK derivative". Yes, it comes also with a GL-attachment. And scope/nightvision etc.

https://img201.imageshack.us/img201/8548/assembled762rk95tpxb3.jpg

Wikipedia wrote:
It is considered to be the best AK-47 variant in the world by many experts, due to the superior quality of materials and workmanship.

Oh, and it's Finnish!

System Of A Down wrote:
"I got a gun the other day from Sako, It's cute, small, fits right in my pocket."

Last edited by DonFck (2007-01-30 22:54:31)

I need around tree fiddy.

2007-01-31 01:25:35

#40

Coolbeano: Level 13.5 BF2S Ninja Penguin Sensei; +378|7209

XM8 was scrapped ages ago, and the SCAR was a much more recent and prospective gun to replace the M16. Along with the HK416, which looked terribly like an M4. The HK416 and SCAR were face to face, and the SCAR won... for now.

The Almighty Max Popenker wrote:
Late in 2004 US SOCOM announced, that the winner for the initial SCAR contracts is the FN USA, an US-based subsidiary of the famous Belgian company Fabrique Nationale Herstal. prototype rifles were manufactured by FN Manufacturing Inc, US-based subsidiary to FN Herstal; This company will also handle series production of rifles. Starting mid-2005, first SCAR rifles went to end users in US Special Operation Forces. Since US SOCOM uses Navy-type "mark" designations, SCAR rifles were officially designated as Rifle Mark 16 (SCAR-L / Light) and Rifle Mark 17 (SCAR-H / Heavy). It is believed that Mk.16 and Mk.17 rifles will gradually replace most rifle systems now in service with US SOCOM forces, such as M4 carbines, M16 rifles, M14 rifles and Mk. 25 sniper rifles.

2007-01-31 02:01:45

#41

AWSMFOX: Banned; +405|6909|A W S M F O X

The HK416 program was a initiative taken HK US department to redesign the M4, using HK total awesomeness and quality, they should stick with it.

2007-01-31 02:36:53

#42

Sup3r_Dr4gon: Boat sig is not there anymore; +214|6773|Australia

What about the XM29? Would have been one HELL of a gun, but they couldn't work around the weight of the thing and the expense (each grenade cost $20).

The main reason the terrorists (and some non-terrorists) are using the AKs is because they're cheap to produce/buy. They'd grab a container of G36s and use them in a heartbeat if they could, but they can't, so they're stuck with the cheap gun.

2007-01-31 12:50:41

#43

Commie Killer: Member; +192|6833

Reciprocity wrote:
while they're at it. they should build a BAR type rifle that fires a .50cal and uses some type of recoil system. make them fear our firepower again.

I hope that was sarcastic.

2007-01-31 13:00:22

#44

mjs1973: Member; +2|6940|Albuquerque, NM

Have any of you watched the show Future Weapons? They have a gun that will keep the shooter safe. It is also a weapon being produced by the Israeli's called the corner shot: Corner Shot

Last edited by mjs1973 (2007-01-31 13:03:08)

2007-01-31 13:01:11

#45

syntaxmax642: Member; +32|7071|Seattle

Commie Killer wrote:
Ok a few things:
1. The problems suffered during Vietnam were totally fixed in the beginning of the war, the problem was that they were labeled as the "rifle that never needed cleaning", there is no such thing(at least not yet, and probably never). The barrels would rust like crazy because they were NOT chrome coated and cleaning kits were not issued.

2. It is now up to model M16A4, the Marines and Army use that as there main service rifle, though the Army has issued a lot more M4's then the M16A2 of A4.

3. If you clean your rifle every day like a good soldier would, you dont have problems, at least that is what I am hearing from the Marines and Soldiers on this forum.

BigmacK wrote:
What about reviving the XM-8 program?
It was canceled because it was not enough of a improvement over the M16 family of weapons and the cost didnt justify the mass production of them.

The other thing that its seems everyone has forgotten about the M16 as it was issued in Nam was that the Military in their infinite wisdom decided to use Ball ammo.. Check a few websites about this and you will learn about the difference between stick powder and ball powder. THe ball ammo that the US mil decided to use gummed up the works and forced the rifle to be cleaned more often than would have been needed if they had used stick power that it was designed for in the first place. That and they decided not to issue cleaning kits at the outset of the deployment of the rifles. This coupled with the fact that it was a new rifle in a very dirty environment made its name mud early on.

Personally I own a Bushmaster M4 A2. I clean it on a regular basis when I use it and understand it's limitations. It is my favorite gun... closest thing to it in BF is the M4 for Spec ops..

2007-01-31 13:27:00

#46

Daniel_Blue-Delta: Member; +11|6748|Sweden

Yeah, the M16 and M4 series aren't very good, but I think it's alot because of the major deal made between the manufacturers and the US military.

I've heard that they're planning a deal with Heckler and Koch.
The G36 series seems to draw their attention. Although it's unclear if this is 100% correct.

Last edited by Daniel_Blue-Delta (2007-01-31 13:28:15)

2007-01-31 13:38:01

#47

Daniel_Blue-Delta: Member; +11|6748|Sweden

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I thought they were going to SCARs now...?

I thought so too...

2007-01-31 13:48:53

#48

(T)eflon(S)hadow: R.I.P. Neda; +456|7275|Grapevine, TX

SealXo wrote:
Varegg wrote:
usmarine2007 wrote:
Because you can hit a fleas ass at 500 yards.
And it`s cheap to mass produce, easy to assemble/disassemble for maintenance !
nothing more easy than a ak

When was the last time you shot an M16 at 500 yards, and also an AK-74?

I loved my M16, I still remember my serial number. Yes a few I checked out at different armories, jammed a few times, but just one more thing that we are trained to overcome. Tap, Rack, Bang! Not always 100% effective, but it is, and always will be better than an AK.

2007-01-31 13:50:31

#49

XanKrieger: iLurk; +60|7104|South West England

After seeing the video about the Scar on that post..... looks like it would do well in a firefight but they fail to mention its reliability or how easy it is to maintain in the field....

2007-01-31 15:11:27

#50

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6914

Considering the M16's competition, it is begining to show age. In tests the L85A2, G36, AK-101, Tavor, and a few others have done better in terms of overall effectiveness, the US ought to design a replacement.

BF2S Forums Why doesn't the M16 get replaced?

usmarine2007 wrote:

Varegg wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

SealXo wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

CoronadoSEAL wrote:

thtthht wrote:

SealXo wrote:

SealXo wrote:

BigmacK wrote:

Wikipedia wrote:

System Of A Down wrote:

The Almighty Max Popenker wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

BigmacK wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

SealXo wrote:

Varegg wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Board footer