BF2S Forums What gun should the US Military adopt as a replacement to the M16/M4?

New gun.  Something they design, a bull pup that fires a 6.8.  It could be a kit for the m16.





jk

How bout the good ol' AUG A3

chuyskywalker wrote:

I'd go with the H&K416 as well. I've seen some test vids of it, like the modular nature of the design, and note that it's really just an evolutionary step in the M4/16 lineage.

yep, and they have a bunch of barrel lengths for different roles too... and the 7.62 variant the 417

usmarine2005 wrote:

M4 is just fine...and they should bring back the M-60.

The E3 version with the forward grip or the original with the the forestock, either way still awesome.

Last edited by M.O.A.B (2007-07-18 01:53:11)

G36

german weapons > us weapons

..but wait... us soldiers don´t want to be flamed in iraq for using unlocks... ok... let them all have AK

Sarrk wrote:

Australian infantry are outfitted with the F88 AuSteyr, a variant of the Steyr AUG.

The Steyer is a smart and longbarreled weapon, but the weight is misplaced, and that make it uncomfortable to use over time.

Meet the SCAR
FNH USA has gotten the go-ahead to move into Operational Test and Evaluation of the SOCOM Combat Assault Rifle (Heavy) and (Light), as well as the Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module.


From FNH:

FN Herstal announced today through FNH USA that the Special Operations
Forces (SOF) Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) and Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module (EGLM) program has received approval from the United States Government (USG) to enter into the Initial Operational Test & Evaluation (IOT&E) phase. Scheduled to commence in July and be complete by mid-December, the IOT&E will consist of select US Military operators testing the weapons in simulated “real-world” mission scenarios. Both quantitative and qualitative data will be collected, with the ultimate and desired outcome having the weapons being designated “Operationally Effective” and “Operationally Suitable” for fielding to US Forces.

This next step comes close on the heels of the SCAR and EGLM successfully passing their Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) acceptance testing conducted February through June of 2007. Going forward, as all timelines fall into place and the weapons test successfully, the SCAR and EGLM can be fielded, on a limited basis, to select US Military Forces by late fall of 2007. Plans to fully field the weapons are now developed and in place, with over $25M (procurement) budgeted in the FY2008 Presidential Budget and over $6M slated for FY2009.

From personal experience, I just gotta say these weapons rock. I fired the SCAR Heavy and Light at FNH’s range near Fredericksburg, Va., several months ago and fell particularly in love with the SCAR Heavy. The gas/piston system has a great “thunk-thunk” mechanical feel to it and the 7.62 caliber heavy packs a heck of a punch. The SCAR Light is easy to fire, very adjustable, and the barrels are easy to interchange - creating basically a whole new weapon for each variation.

Much to my chagrin, they wouldn’t let me test fire the EGLM (darn!).

With the new move to IOT&E, the SCAR earns a new designation: Mk-16 and Mk-17...

The SCAR system consists of two highly adaptable modular rifle platforms and a grenade launcher. Now US DoD type-designated as the MK 16 MOD 0 5.56mm Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle - Light (SCAR-L) and the MK 17 MOD 0 7.62mm Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle – Heavy (SCAR-H), both SCAR platforms are available with three different barrel lengths optimized for conducting operations in close-quarters combat, standard infantry and longer-range precision fire roles. All SCAR barrels can be easily interchanged by the operator in the field in just minutes to instantly meet the requirements of virtually any mission. The newly designated MK 13 MOD 0 40mm Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module (EGLM) quickly mounts to the underside of either SCAR platform, providing additional punch to the individual warfighter’s firepower and can be easily configured for use as a stand-alone weapon as well.

FNH says the Mk-16 and Mk-17 are the first assault rifles to be procured through a “full and open competition” since the M4/M16 carbines in the 1960s. Both FNH weapons are impressive and we’ll see how the operational tests and initial fielding go. I bet operators who get a chance to “test” them won’t want to give them up. I didn’t.

-- Christian


*********************************************************************************************************************

The other rifle maybe the one that is in Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon game I forgot the assault rifle's moniker

416.

HK416/417.
it reminds me most of a n M4 and dunst it have sum kinda stuff that makes it not jam?

As a actual real infantry Marine I have to sit back and laugh at all of this arm chair quarterbacking in this thread. What makes you think we need a new weapons system? The M-16A2 worked for me just fine in OEF 1 and the M-16A4 worked great during OIF 1 and 3. The 5.56 ss109 NATO round is a great round for what we are using it for. What is lacks in size it makes up in hitting power. I have carried a M-24(M-14) DMR before and while it is nice to have that big 7.62 round at times like in Afghanistan it really sucks to have to carry that big of a weapon and all that heavy ammo that goes with it. With the M-16 you can carry twice the amount of ammo and for a MOUT situation like in Iraq it is the ideal round of choice. Why do you think that the soviets went to the 5.45 in the AK-74? They like us found that the smaller faster moving round could get the job done and allow the average infantryman to carry more ammo. You might hear from people who have probably never even fired a M-16 that the bullet is to small and doesn't do enough damage but thousands upon thousands of dead insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan disagree with you.  So please unless you have actual experience with them lets not go knocking what we already have that is a proven weapon.

The HK-416/417, or rechambering the M4 and M16 to the 6.8mm round (which would require NATO adopting that round). From what I hear though, the M16 and M4 are pretty damn good. If anything just make them take more of a beating like the AK-47 does while still being accurate.

USMCkilla wrote:

So please unless you have actual experience with them lets not go knocking what we already have that is a proven weapon.

that wont work here.....
too many kids.


hell, i had one tell me that the thompson fires "special ammo they dont make anymore", lol like .45 ACP


then i had another tell me, its more practical to carry a shotgun over a pistol when utilizing my CCW license.

jord wrote:

Parker wrote:

USMCkilla wrote:

So please unless you have actual experience with them lets not go knocking what we already have that is a proven weapon.

that wont work here.....
too many kids.


hell, i had one tell me that the thompson fires "special ammo they dont make anymore", lol like .45 ACP


then i had another tell me, its more practical to carry a shotgun over a pistol when utilizing my CCW license.

You don't need to have done something to know about it.

sure, you dont need to do something to know about it, but like i have said many times prior.....without experience, there is only so much you can know.

Parker wrote:

jord wrote:

Parker wrote:

that wont work here.....
too many kids.


hell, i had one tell me that the thompson fires "special ammo they dont make anymore", lol like .45 ACP


then i had another tell me, its more practical to carry a shotgun over a pistol when utilizing my CCW license.

You don't need to have done something to know about it.

sure, you dont need to do something to know about it, but like i have said many times prior.....without experience, there is only so much you can know.

I used to know a guy who thought my airsoft gun (6mm) shot harder than an M16 (5.56mm) because "the bullets were bigger".

/facedesk

/facedesk