Will the next major change for the Military be caliber and not rifle design?

AR/M4 AR General Discussion
1

A lot of people are thinking about what major change the US Military will choose regarding their battle rifle since the current M16 is nearly 50 years old. Even the great Colt 1911 (M11911) was eventually replaced by the Beretta M9 after nearly 70 years. (Which I think was a mistake, the 1911 is far superior design then the M9.)

The M16 replaced the M14 but a striking difference is the M16’s ability to be customized and accessorized. Two other great weapons that have stood the test of time have been able to do so because of their ability to be customized and accessorized, these are the Colt 1911 and the Ruger 10/22. Although you can add a new stock, and other parts to the M14, it really can’t be altered to the extent that these other weapons can.


So, rather then change the M16 platform that has proven so effective, do you think the next major change for the military battle rifle will simply be a change in caliber, rather then an entirely different rifle?

Perhaps change to a more effective caliber such as one of the great 6.5’s (Creedmor, SPC, Grendel)? (The US Military Spec Ops have already used the M16 in 7.62 with great success although in small numbers.)

Ironically, two weapons that have stood the test of time and are not very customizable are the AK47 and the M2 Browning .50 cal.

2

I’m sorry, but I suggest you read more, post less, and learn to use the search function. This topic has been discussed too many times to begin counting.

3

Good Question! (for TOS)

4

Just from what I’ve seen and heard through the “grapevine” this would not surprise me if it was in fact just a caliber upgrade.

To be perfectly honest the only one I have seen that makes sense from a logistics stand point is the 300 black out.

I mean same bolt, same magazines that are in inventory same capacity not an appreciative weight increase in load on our guys in uniform.

The ability to run a very effective suppressed cartridge with a simple ammo swap if they don’t run the subsonic out the gate.

It looks like there are several purpose built loads working there way down the pipeline, the materials to construct these rounds are everywhere even in the civilian world.

Now of course 7.62X51 would still have its place for longer effective target engagement but with the right ammo the 300blk could definetly do the job out to 300-500yds right?

Just one mans opinion correct me if I’m wrong please but its seems logical

5

I think that a change in caliber will require a redesign of platform, and any platform designed to unseat the M4/M16 FOW will have to bring more to the table than simply being “better”, refer to the SCAR-L. Any “new” caliber will be heavily resisted due to the financial impact of requiring LC to re-tool, as well as the NATO commonality requirement and the cost that would be associated with getting all other NATO countries to follow us into the rabbit hole, as we forced them to do first with 7.62, and later with 5.56, both with the promise that they were the best choice. I see widespread adoption of 7.62 to be more likely than adoption of 6.8/6.5/7mm Murray, regardless of their superiority in any particular endeavor.

FWIW- it isn’t just SOCOM that is using 7.62 ARs. The KAC SR-25 has been exposing the innards of jihadis for many years. It is NOT a 7.62 M16, it just looks like one. The Brits adopted a 7.62 LMT not too long ago, and it too has been fighting the good fight, so it isn’t just in “limited” numbers.

The only reason that the M16 FOW has the ability to be easily customized is because lots of people own them and dump money into the industry. 1913 rails aren’t all that mysterious, and they can be mounted on anything from M240Bs to coffee mugs. Replacing HGs on an M4 requires knoiwledge, experience, and tools to do right. There are several weapon designs that are comparable in furniture swaps. If the Mini-14 had the popularity of the AR we would see just as much modularity in furniture and optics.

M9 vs 1911? If you want to go there, feel free to start a new thread in “Handguns”, but for military application you are wrong.
But on your point about personilization: the 1911 does not lend itself well to individual user customization. Gunsmiths do it, for $$. Sure, you can change your grips, but past that and you need to do fitting, which is not something you pick up from youtube in 15 min. Sights, sear, trigger, barrel, slide, hammer (and more) all require fitting to work right.
M9? Pull the part out of the bag and drop it in.
Broken locking block? Pull the part out of the bag and drop it in.
Broken safety? Pull the part out of the bag and drop it in.
Cracked slide? Pull the part out of the bag and slide it on.
Cracked barrel? I think you see where I am going with this.

M2 and AK?
M2? Heavy machineguns don’t need much customization to do their job. There’s a reason that they come with tracers.
The only significant changes to them is a QC barrel, safety, and some optic mounts.
Still, there is an improved FN version that has been gaining ground and will probably wind up in ground units soon.

AK? There are plenty of accessories on the market, but AK enthusiasts tend to fall into a different spectrum than AR enthusiasts. AKs are generally persued as a cost-effective solution based primarily in robustness/durability with an affinity for alternate calibers. Even then, there are a few different mounting solutions for RDSs, AR-like stock adaptors, railed foregrips, improved trigger groups, and polymer magazines. There are a higher percentage of chinese craptastic parts being frequently added to AKs, but that’s probably just a result of the market base and audience targeting.

Everything evolves according to use.

6

I think a new powder design would be advantageous… a more potent powder would allow for smaller cases therefore increasing carrying capacity… think of the ability to run a 7.62 round in a 19mm case, and still achieve pressures comparable to or greater than a 51mm case…

7

Failure2Stop, couldn’t have said it better

8

Not only are AK’s not very customizable (albeit can be done to a point) they are a bitch to work on. My current employer uses AK47’s and derivatives and I forgot how much I hated working them until recently.

Aside from furniture, there is very little that can be swapped out by the user. Barrel- forget it. Ejector- not happening. Magazine release, handguard take down latch, etc…

9

I think its rather naive to think that the military is simply going to find a new caliber, slap it in a gun, and say here ya go. Every chnge in combat rifle that has taken place throughout the past century has come with a nearly complete change in the rifle and caliber being used, with the exception of the M1 family and its similar action. Even then however the Garand, the Carbine, and the M14 all use a different round. Take a look back at the begining of the 20th century with the introduction of the 1903. This rifle was hugely successful and was in use for about 50 years. But, it was hugely successful for its time. The Garand followed and was used for the next two decades, once again with great success, however, great success for the current necessary application. Then we see the introduction of the M14, once again an excellent rifle. Howver with its obvious drawbacks in weight, the M16 appeared. Yes the M16 is a great rifle and is very effective when used correctly. That being said, as the times and applications change so will the rifles. I’m sure it won’t be too long until we see a completely new design take over once again. But when you attempt to design a new rifle and rearm an entire military you want to be damn sure that your design is going to work before you sign off on it. Hints why this debate is still continuing, I don’t know about yall but I look forward to where advancements in firearms technology take us.

10

I would think that if the US Military changed calibers, it would be to a NATO round like they did with the 9mm…that said, I’ve been hearing lately that they are going back to the .45 caliber (FN as well).

11

I think it is extremely unlikely that the military will change rifle calibers anytime soon. The main reasons are two fold.

First, in this era of severe budget problems and likely upcoming cuts in defense spending, the military simply doesn’t have the money to change calibers and even if the funds are available their simply are other funding priorities that need to happen first. For nearly last 10 years we have been fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq on the cheap. In order to hide or decrease the current costs of the wars, both administrations have neglected purchasing new major equipment items along with the maintenance/overhauling of existing equipment. For example, most of our major military equipment such as helicopters, aircraft, ground vehicles, etc… were built in the 1980s and is increasingly getting worn out. All of the services are going to have to spend tens of billions of dollars just to recapitalize worn out equipment let alone purchase replacements.

The second reason that a new caliber won’t be adopted is because in the scheme of things it isn’t that important. In modern warfare, it really doesn’t make much of a difference if your infantry is using 5.56 vs a new caliber such as 6.8 spc. I would much rather invest limited funds in making improvements aircraft, artillery, PGMs, UAVs, sensors, etc… which will provide you far greater benefits if we ever face advanced opponents such as China.

12

I don’t believe you are going to see any real change in what is being used by the US military until a viable caseless ammunition system is developed. Anything else being proposed provides marginal improvement at a significant cost.

13

Answers such as this are so unbelievably counterproductive.

F2S’s answer gives the OP much more to work with not to mention everyone else interested in the same or similar question.

14

The M-16/M4 platform in its 5.56 varmint caliber and D.I. operating system, has served the US Military since 1965. That does not mean it is the best rifle for our troops available, because everyone knows it isn’t!
While the rifle itself usually functions well enough to the point of bare adequacy, the caliber is simply TOO SMALL. There are hundreds or thousands of accounts, from Vietnam to today, where the poodle round had multiple hits on the enemy but who then simply staggered away. The concept that the 5.56 round "tumbles’ on impact with an enemy fighter is for the most part a complete fallacy. The physics of a 62 grain projectile, moving at over 3,000 FPS preclude this, more often then not, unless a vital organ is struck it results in through-and-through “ice-pick” type wounds. The 5.56 round is a very humane weapon, for the enemy.

Meanwhile the military loads the soldier up with body armor, helmet, grenades, radios, GPS receivers, etc. to the tune of 60-80 lbs per soldier. I submit to you, if the soldier is carrying a dubious round in his rifle in the first place, what is the point of lugging around all this high tech crap, when it’s a 50/50 shot he is going to kill the enemy with his own (underpowered) rifle?

Oddly the super-powers have followed the American’s lead toward smaller calibers, the russians use the 5.45 round as standard issue and the Chinese have fielded a new bull-pup weapon in a brand new caliber, 5.8mm. Good for them if they think the round they chose is effective, we have decades of evidence to tell us our 5.56 is NOT effective.

7.62 NATO is here to stay, due to it being a very good machine gun round. The problem is it’s too powerful for a shoulder-fired weapon - and the 5.56 isn’t powerful enough. The logical solution would seem to be a switch to either 6.5 or 6.8 caliber. considering there’s more then one shooting war going on, it would not be a stretch to simply allow existing stocks of 5.56 to be used up and then switch calibers. The military spends far more on one stealth bomber then it would cost to do this. But chances are, this will never happen. Too much logic involved for the Pentagon muckety-mucks.

15

I think I read this in an op-ed piece from the Army Times in 2007…

16

You just word for word copied what every naysayer of the M16 FOW has been saying since its adoption. Please read more and post less or go back to TOS. :suicide2:

17

I have found the 5.56 to be a great round and has served me and my fellow Soldiers, my brother in law and his fellow Marines, very well.

I never had nor saw any problems with the 5.56 putting bad guys down with proper shot placement.

Now that the Mk318 and the M855A1 are being fielded, I dont see the need for a new standard rifle cartridge.

18

It’s become the nature of the forum, a trait highly endorsed by many with tenure.

19

The answer to the problem that doesn’t exsist, OP, is not a new “Moar LETHAL!!” round nor, a new “Moar LETHAL!!” space age super-gun.

The answer is training. Improvements in the quantitative and qualitative value of our (your) training is the surest bet to increase lethality. The tools (M16 FOW) we have work. The tools we have are flexible. The tools we have are proven. And until something comes along that completely changes the entire paradigm of modern ground warfare, they ARE some of the best tools available for the role that they fill.

20

Until we event dart guns whos darts blow up the persons head like on the episodes of South Park where Cartman froze himself and ended up in the future, I don’t an end to that round is weak, poodle shooter, blablabla. Come on we have people who won’t use 12 gauge loads that don’t have the max velocity and amount of shot, slugs going as fast as they can, etc and anecdotal evidence of rounds failing covers many rounds.

That being said, I think they would overhaul as much as possible at once to include weapon platform. I see them keeping current ammunition selection, maybe using a different round such as bullet composition/design, and changing weapon platforms used but not really changing ammunition completely and leaving everything else as/is unless its something ridiculously easy to do which would be very similar to 5.56X45 most likely and not warrant a change.