So Ive been wondering if the US will ever completely replace the M-16 system, the current rifle used to day is the M-16A4, but the US has two new options to go to. Im not talking about special ops weapons but replacing the regular infantry mans rifle. do you think the US will ever move on to these? or just continue to use the M-16 and M-4. these new rifles have large resemblances to the M-16's M468 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmiK_k0na6I H&K416 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zSPwZXfDnM History of Israel and the gun. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfwYCmZqmCI
I reckon they should supply the infantry with these new weapons, after all the M16 was produced before Vietnam.
The Army has conducted tests and evaluations for several years on replacements for the M-16. The rifles being tested in the past few years are probably the best so far. The HK has been doing quite well. If the Army does adopt a new battle rifle it will probably take 5 to 10 years before it is in widespread issue.
Google Masada, saw it on future weapons (so it's probably still prototype) Nearly completely modular. can be fitted to fire non-NATO rounds and apparentyl very self explanatory (of course it would be if you had about 10yrs SEAL experience.....) looks pretty mean too
Good links. I particularly enjoyed the Israeli one - had it not been for the humble British Sten Israel may not exist today.
. The first step to design a gun is to design a bullet , the 5.56 NATO round has often been criticized as lacking in heft , a bit lightweight to get good penetration but changing it would be a massive hassle . If the same caliber is kept , the M.16 has plenty of juice left , it took about ten years to get the bugs out and is now a mature , proven design . a main infantry rifle is not only a great assault gun to fire on the range , it must be have many other qualities one of them being versatility , close fighting ability is critical but long distance firing also occur , reliability to corrosion is vital and a good cost/ quality ratio DOES matter to the tax payer The M16A4 is a fine and trusted gun , there is some hostile shooting on now , I can see some soldier discovering the design failures of a new model by getting his arse shot up because the manufacturer leaned on the brass to get "battle experience " .
Plus of course you want to avoid reinventing the wheel. Changing over to a new gun probably means new ammo, certainly means new spare parts. Troops have to be retrained, kinks (and ther will be kinks) worked out. Not a great thing for the middle of a shooting war. After a shooting okay, but even then the new gun has to do some new or something better to be worth the bother.
I think that the AK-47 will be made to be around for a hundred years (your opinions?) While as the M-16 will be completely phased out around 2020 thats just my novice opinion I hope you understand.
I don't think that's unlikely, globally, let's face it there are still MP44s and K98Ks turning up in being used in conflicts now. The widespread nature of the AK, it's robustness, ease of use by untrained/poorly trained troops and low cost will of course contribute to this. Whether it will still be being made in 2108 unchanged from the AKM in any respect, I doubt it. I doubt it, but a lot depends on what you mean. Completely phased out by the US armed forces, maybe but I wouldn't be surprised to still find reservist or national guard units still using it in another 12 year's time. However, if you apply the same standard as to the Kalashnikov, I would be surprised if in 2020 some regular armed force somewhere in the world wasn't still using the M16.
. They have changed it already ! From the manufacturer site , there are several variants you can see the specs by clicking on the ( small ) top right arrows http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/ak107.shtml They also have my personal favorite , the dragunov .
The AK-47 is indeed a weapon that practically anyone can use with little training. And in Harry Turtledove's excellent novel "Guns of the South", a group of white South Africans from 2014 get hold of a time machine and take a large number of AKs back to 1864 (the machine can only reach back 150 years), where they sell them to the Confederate government (for practically worthless Confederate paper money) in the American Civil War. Their aim is to ensure a Southern victory in that conflict so that the USA will be permanently divided and thus unable to interfere with white rule or apartheid in South Africa in the future. The Confederate troops take to the new weapons like ducks to water and the war, and history in general, gets very interesting. If you can, read it; it's an excellent story with quite a few surprises.
america is responsble for the end of aparthied in s, africa ? i think they would have had to take a very , very large supply of aks to the south to have any effect on the conflict ,an ak wont save you from 10 or 20 guys shooting mini balls or canister shot at you .
I would think he means south US( as in the confederate states.), I googled the book. Im sure the whites of the south didnt have much of an opinion on the blacks fo south africk.
