View Full Version : M16A?
wild_wild_wes
10-15-12, 00:17
Just a few days ago I saw an article online- forgot where- about the future of the M16A4/M4 in USMC service. The officer interviewed stated that the -A4 with its 20" barrel would remain the standard service weapon, not like the Armys move to an all-M4 issue.
He said the Corps was looking at the following options: heavy barrel, telestock, free-flating barrel, and adjustable gas system for use with supressor.
What do you think of that? And more importantly, has anyone done a pre-clone yet? If so, let's see it!
I think the current barrel is just fine. Out of those options listed, they should go with the collapsable stock (A5).
If they went with a free floated forend rail, it would undoubtedly be a quad rail. Too much real-estate. Too heavy. If they went with a slim stripped forend and allowed marines to attach rail segments where they wanted them, that would be ok.
iPhone/Tapatalk
wild_wild_wes
10-15-12, 00:36
I don't understand the attachment to the 20" barrel, especially with 18" Mk12s as an issue waepon.
I guess it is asking too much for our system to think in terms of anything other than 14.5 and 20 (rolls eyes)...
Well yeah, a 20" is pretty old school.
But if they're going forward with it, then at least give the troops an adjustable LOP
iPhone/Tapatalk
I think the current barrel is just fine. Out of those options listed, they should go with the collapsable stock (A5).
If they went with a free floated forend rail, it would undoubtedly be a quad rail. Too much real-estate. Too heavy. If they went with a slim stripped forend and allowed marines to attach rail segments where they wanted them, that would be ok.
iPhone/Tapatalk
There's plenty of light weight free float options available for the Corps to look at. The easiest being a DD Omega.
While I'd love to see a modular tube style handguard implemented, there's just more parts to lose. I've seen plenty of KAC panels get lost by marines.
I don't understand the attachment to the 20" barrel, especially with 18" Mk12s as an issue waepon.
I guess it is asking too much for our system to think in terms of anything other than 14.5 and 20 (rolls eyes)...
There's probably a few reasons for the attachment to the 20" barrel.
5.56 is optimal out of a 20" as far as velocity for most rounds. Although I'm sure 18" would be close enough for it to not matter.
The Marine Corps is usually short on money and it would be a hell of lot cheaper to work around the current barrels. While the 18" SS Douglas barrels used in the MK12s are a lot better as far as accuracy, I'm going to assume they're a lot more expensive.
I'm sure there's also at least a few people in the chain who are just resistant to change as far as nostalgia. Especially with the whole "Every Marine a rifleman" doctrine, I doubt we'll be seeing a move from the longer barrels for the majority of the Corps.
I think detachable rail segments would not be a good idea. In the military, everything gets lost, so that would never work. Staying with the M16 for all troops is fine, but specialized units will get M4's or whatever else they wanted.
As a tax payer, you guys are killin me with all the stuff getting lost talk.
iPhone/Tapatalk
sinlessorrow
10-15-12, 07:58
Last I read they are sticking withthe M16 but are working on a PiP that includes a collapsing stock and a FF foreend.
As a tax payer, you guys are killin me with all the stuff getting lost talk.
iPhone/Tapatalk
If a person loses something, he or she generally has to pay the government back.
If the Marine Corps went with one of those Homo match boy tubes, I'd shit myself. :mad:
A little more meat on the barrel wouldn't be too bad.. as long as it wasn't a full HBAR profile. I can't get used to how light the Govt profile 20 inch FNMI barrel is on my A2 rifle. It just feels weird.
theblackknight
10-15-12, 08:28
If the Marine Corps went with one of those Homo match boy tubes, I'd shit myself. :mad:
You mean like the USMC Combat Shooting Team uses on thier A4s?http://d1.static.dvidshub.net/media/thumbs/450x281/photos/1112/499933_q75.jpg
So you're agaisnt Marines getting a handguard that would be and feel lighter, improve the MOA and handling? Sounds about right.
sent from mah gun,using my sights
sinlessorrow
10-15-12, 09:11
You mean like the USMC Combat Shooting Team uses on thier A4s?http://d1.static.dvidshub.net/media/thumbs/450x281/photos/1112/499933_q75.jpg
So you're agaisnt Marines getting a handguard that would be and feel lighter, improve the MOA and handling? Sounds about right.
sent from mah gun,using my sights
Thats not what he said. A DD OMega 12 is lighter, ff and will improve moa and is a quad rail.
wild_wild_wes
10-15-12, 11:03
Speaking as a former Marine, I don't think detachable-rail handguards would be a good idea either.
wild_wild_wes
10-15-12, 11:05
A little more meat on the barrel wouldn't be too bad.. as long as it wasn't a full HBAR profile.
Given the military's thick-brained conservatism, I would guess the barrel would be the same diameter as the M4A1.
Speaking as a former Marine, I don't think detachable-rail handguards would be a good idea either.
It wouldn't be for any large agency or organization. Issued gear with small pieces is often lost or misplaced. Guys who can't figure out why have evidently never served.
I don't understand the attachment to the 20" barrel, especially with 18" Mk12s as an issue waepon.
Simple - cost. There is no way in hell that the USMC would issue Mk12s to every Marine in lieu of the M16. There is no money for that and there is no manpower to support it. The A4 (and further evolutions) is cheap, effective, and easy to support.
I don't mean this in a bad way, but Marines take the need for concept of "soldier proof" to a whole new level. They are tough guys who work up to their eyeballs in shit, so none of their gear can be fragile or complicated. A tactical match or "3-Gun" setup would be down in no time under "normal" operating conditions.
wild_wild_wes
10-15-12, 15:27
Simple - cost. There is no way in hell that the USMC would issue Mk12s to every Marine in lieu of the M16. There is no money for that and there is no manpower to support it. The A4 (and further evolutions) is cheap, effective, and easy to support.
Not what I meant. The general issue rifle has a longer barrel than the specialist pecision rifle. Makes no sense.
I think they need the longer barrels because in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the insurgents are often times further out than 400M and high up in elevation. The longer barrel will give the rifle a little more reach and they're betting the next time - it will be in similar environments and planning equipment mix to address that.
Not what I meant. The general issue rifle has a longer barrel than the specialist pecision rifle. Makes no sense.
Look at total cost of ownership, not just the individual weapon costs. If the USMC changes to a shorter barrel, then they have to get new racks, new vehicle mounts, new shipping containers, make more changes, obsolete a bunch of ancillary components that they would have to repurchase, etc.
For a small service branch, it is a costly proposition and disproportionately more expensive than say for the Army or Navy to make changes since they have a much smaller budget/man to begin with. If they were going to make all of the changes, they could just switch to a MK16/17 or IAR or something as the costs would be equally unaffordable.
Not to threadjack or move off-topic to a political rant, but the Marine Corps should have more money as it has been proven that they can do things much more efficiently and with much less waste than Big Army. If sequestration goes through, they're scheduled to be taking a huge hit; but the politics of that with the current admin is another topic entirely. /rant
Heavy profile in a 20" tube is not a good idea due to extra weight. The MK12 has shown that an 18" tube coupled with quality ammo can get the job done at distance. IMO the 18" tube is a good balance point between getting a good stiff cross section for accuracy and heat tolerance without making for a boat anchor. Although its still heavy enough when you have to tote the thing for days on end.
Personally I'd like to see them go with an 18" SPR profile as the current tubes get replaced. Not everyone needs the Douglas match grade barrel and the profile can be had cost effectively from other makers in either SST or ChromeMoly.
Rifle length free float rails can be implemented immediately and would still work when the tubes are swapped out. Same for the A5 stock.
vereceleritas
10-15-12, 16:52
Having carried an M16A4 for most of my 4 years in the Corps, I can honestly say that the 20" barrel isn't that bad. The single biggest complaint most guys have against the A4 is the stock. Shooting it with body armor on is down right ridiculous. While it would be nice to get new barrels, free float rails and all that, the reality is that the war is winding down and funds are drying up. In these times of fiscal uncertainty we really need to be looking for a "most bang for the buck" improvement. IMO, the M16A4 doesn't NEED a free float rail system. It doesn't NEED a different barrel. It DOES need an adjustable LOP stock. The Vltor A5 stock system is a viable COTS option that will net the biggest improvement in usability and ergonomics. Next thing on the to-do list would be ditching those stupid 3-point slings and replacing them with a quality 2-point.
About the DD Omega rails, keep in mind that it likely can't be adopted as-is because it doesn't have a cutout on the top half of the rail for the M203 clamp. Take a look at a KAC M5 RAS and you'll have an idea what I'm talking about. I'm sure DD could come up with something if they were asked to though.
The A4 PIP is looking at a universal free floating handguard (usable in the M4 also) and collapsible stock.
During the M27 as a service rifle tests they did also add match barrels to the A4 PIP to see what the break even point would be cost wise
They found they could get 75 percent of the capability of the M27 at 25 percent the cost.
cougar_guy04
10-15-12, 17:55
He said the Corps was looking at the following options: heavy barrel, telestock, free-flating barrel, and adjustable gas system for use with supressor.
What do you think of that? And more importantly, has anyone done a pre-clone yet? If so, let's see it!
I think the adjustable gas system is DOA. I know they're handy and have some benefits, but I would imagine they would have a tendency to always be on the wrong setting. Also, a suppressor on the existing M16 would make for one long rifle.
I'm just a square range gamer, but I would say if sticking with the A4 and 20" barrel, the collapsible stock would be the biggest benefit. Screwing around with a 20" gov't profile upper with the A2 Stock, I didn't see it to be bad setup (kinda liked it, really). The change I'd make to a personal 20" rifle would be the collapsible stock. After that, the free floating rail and then maybe a slightly heavier barrel. Not much though, I can't say I'd want to carry a 20" HBAR over hill and dale.
I have carried a 20" AR with an HBar profile barrel over hill and dale. In my opinion, it's about as heavy as it can get and still be light enough for the rifle to be a practical walk-about. A "sporter weight" barrel would be better
Look at total cost of ownership, not just the individual weapon costs. If the USMC changes to a shorter barrel, then they have to get new racks, new vehicle mounts, new shipping containers, make more changes, obsolete a bunch of ancillary components that they would have to repurchase, etc.
For a small service branch, it is a costly proposition and disproportionately more expensive than say for the Army or Navy to make changes since they have a much smaller budget/man to begin with. If they were going to make all of the changes, they could just switch to a MK16/17 or IAR or something as the costs would be equally unaffordable.
Not to threadjack or move off-topic to a political rant, but the Marine Corps should have more money as it has been proven that they can do things much more efficiently and with much less waste than Big Army. If sequestration goes through, they're scheduled to be taking a huge hit; but the politics of that with the current admin is another topic entirely. /rant
Changing to M27 as a service weapon, it was impractical for 2 reasons 1) it would cost over a billion to equip just GCE units 2) H&K could not make enough rifles fast enough to equip the force in a reasonable time, if I remember right would takes something like 17-18 years at their full out, surge production rates.
As part of that evaluation it was determined that they could do a PIP with a new barrel, free floating hand guard and collapsible stock at 25 percent the cost.
wild_wild_wes
10-16-12, 10:58
So, they could put any barrel on there, right? How about an IAR spec barrel?
I too have carried a M16A4 for four years. It is perfectly serviceable. An adjustable stock like the A5 would be the only real improvement it NEEDS. The barrel is accurate enough for the skill level of 90% of the Corps.
The Marine Corp is underfunded compared to the other branches, and doesn't see the need to change everyone's rifles. There are actually a lot of M4s in service in the Corps also
Changing to M27 as a service weapon, it was impractical for 2 reasons 1) it would cost over a billion to equip just GCE units 2) H&K could not make enough rifles fast enough to equip the force in a reasonable time, if I remember right would takes something like 17-18 years at their full out, surge production rates.
As part of that evaluation it was determined that they could do a PIP with a new barrel, free floating hand guard and collapsible stock at 25 percent the cost.
The billion $ aside and H&K's production capacity aside, even at 25% cost (versus the M27) for the PIP upgrade, I doubt the money is there in current budgets to do a service-wide retrofit.
Funny thing is my brother in law and I were in at the same time. He was a Marine and I was Army. He carried a M4 in Iraq and I carried an A4 of some type, when I didnt have a machinegun, the entire time I was in the Army.
I have cleared a lot of building and done a lot of vehicle operations with a rifle. The only thing it really NEEDs is a collapsable stock.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.