Sitting at work today toying with the idea of an M16A5... or maybe an entirely new variant.  The idea here is to consolidate the M4 Carbine and M16 rifles into one universal rifle platform for the US Army/USMC

 

So I'm thinking... we don't like the long barrel of the M16 (20+"), but we also don't like the velocity loss on bullets fired out of the M4 (14.5+")... so why not make the new rifle a 16"?

 

* 16" barrel (not including flash hider)

* Free float rail system (integrated)

* Std. Front Sight post

* Matech BUIS

* 6-position adjustable stock

* Mid-length gas system

* New lightweight barrel profile (pencil thin)

* Full-auto instead of 3-rd burst

* Comes std. with one of three optic options (M68, Elcan 4x, or ACOG).

 

Don't need "grenade cuts" in the barrel profile anymore with an integrated rail.  You can mount it on MIL-STD-1913 rails, so this means you can use a lighter barrel.

 

It's a bit longer than the M4, but not by much, but still has advantages in barrel length.  It's shorter than the 20" M16 with an adjustable stock, making it easier to maneuver.  It's got a lighter barrel.  Integrated rails.

 

Thoughts?

I have a chf  mid16" lightweight, and it gets hot very fast . 

Exactly how much velocity is lost from a 14.5" barrel vs the 20"?

Just keep in mind that one size fits all means ill fitting hospital scrubs for everyone, or possibly stretchy leotards with a big V on the chest. The tanker really wants the shorter barrel and the DSM wants that 20" barrel.

I'm sure that the Marine Corps would be on board with free float handguards, since it's my understanding that they've been pushing for them since the advent of the MWS (on the updated A2's). 

 

(I'll pass in regard to commenting on field stripping and cleaning, since I am not familiar enough with the free float rails to speak with any authority on those aspects)

 

However I'm not so certain about shortening the barrel to 16in. That's what the M4 was about, so I'm doubtful that they would want a compromise-length weapon to replace either weapon. The M16 has it's situational purpose and the M4 has it's situational purpose. Both situational purposes would be compromised by a "meet in the middle" barrel length.

I don't think there's ANY way the Marine Corps drops the 20in barrel and it's 500 meter effective range. No way.

 

As for A1 style barrel profile.... that's old school  

There have been dozens of sea stories about jarheads bending those barrels, but I don't know what's true or not. All I do know is that any reduction in weight would be welcomed with open arms!

 

As for full auto... I doubt that they will go back to that. We had it in my day, but we were reamed out big time if we let loose with anything more than a 5 round burst. There are other weapons in an infantry unit for laying down that kind of sustained-auto spray if needed. Full auto gets hot(!!!) and ammo disappears in a hurry. So when it comes to a return of full auto... I just don't see that happening.

 

That's a few thoughts.

Just keep in mind that one size fits all means ill fitting hospital scrubs for everyone, or possibly stretchy leotards with a big V on the chest. The tanker really wants the shorter barrel and the DSM wants that 20" barrel.

 

Aren't Tankers issued M4A1s anyways?  So is 1.5" of barrel much of a detriment?  Not being a dick, but just wondering.

 

As for one-size fits all, at least this would have an adjustable stock, which is a feature not found on the M16A4... Big soldier, small soldier, armor, no armor, you get one LOP, deal with it.

I'm sure that the Marine Corps would be on board with free float handguards, since it's my understanding that they've been pushing for them since the advent of the MWS (on the updated A2's). 

 

(I'll pass in regard to commenting on field stripping and cleaning, since I am not familiar enough with the free float rails to speak with any authority on those aspects)

 

However I'm not so certain about shortening the barrel to 16in. That's what the M4 was about, so I'm doubtful that they would want a compromise-length weapon to replace either weapon. The M16 has it's situational purpose and the M4 has it's situational purpose. Both situational purposes would be compromised by a "meet in the middle" barrel length.

I don't think there's ANY way the Marine Corps drops the 20in barrel and it's 500 meter effective range. No way.

 

As for A1 style barrel profile.... that's old school

There have been dozens of sea stories about jarheads bending those barrels, but I don't know what's true or not. All I do know is that any reduction in weight would be welcomed with open arms!

 

As for full auto... I doubt that they will go back to that. We had it in my day, but we were reamed out big time if we let loose with anything more than a 5 round burst. There are other weapons in an infantry unit for laying down that kind of sustained-auto spray if needed. Full auto gets hot(!!!) and ammo disappears in a hurry. So when it comes to a return of full auto... I just don't see that happening.

 

That's a few thoughts.

 

Random thought: is it even worth keeping a full-auto/burst feature?  I mean, if we teach soldiers to predominantly use semi-auto, why even give them full auto?  Saves on wear and tear I imagine, and makes for a simpler rifle.

 

Also, isn't the 16" barrel length a decent compromise in maneuverability and round performance?  Is the extra length that much of a detriment over the 14.5" M4?  Is the loss in velocity from 20" that bad?

I suspect if you had to move in and out of cramped quarters all day long, every sliver of space you can get back you'll take back, so I'd say that 1.5" matters. Also weapons in war are not always used just in aimed fire like on a range. I suspect sometime you just want to keep someone's head down and pouring fire fully auto seems to be a feature armies really want and don't even question the need for. So much so that they've been building things like the H&K full auto rifle thingy, whatever it is called.

 

On a SPR, where they could have put anything they've wanted, they've put a full length stock because that matters for precision shooting.

 

Basically,  I guess what I'm saying is that there is no universal wrench, no universal hammer, no universal shoe size, so trying to invent a universal rifle would be an experiment in giving almost everyone the wrong tool.

I suspect if you had to move in and out of cramped quarters all day long, every sliver of space you can get back you'll take back, so I'd say that 1.5" matters. Also weapons in war are not always used just in aimed fire like on a range. I suspect sometime you just want to keep someone's head down and pouring fire fully auto seems to be a feature armies really want and don't even question the need for. So much so that they've been building things like the H&K full auto rifle thingy, whatever it is called.

 

On a SPR, where they could have put anything they've wanted, they've put a full length stock because that matters for precision shooting.

 

Basically,  I guess what I'm saying is that there is no universal wrench, no universal hammer, no universal shoe size, so trying to invent a universal rifle would be an experiment in giving almost everyone the wrong tool.

Suppressive fire is more the role of the squad's LMGs though. The IAR is meant to replace some (not all) of the USMC M249s and IIRC, the Army will be sticking with the M249 and passing on the IAR completely. The IAR isn't meant to replace the standard M4 or M16.

I know, my point is that automatic fire is something desired. SO why remove it?

I know, my point is that automatic fire is something desired. SO why remove it?

 

I think he's saying it's not desired in a rifle used en mass.  Which is a sentiment I find common among professional police/military because of how squad level tactics work out.  Your LMGs provide suppressing fire while you use that to advance and flank your enemy.

 

How funny would it be if the US Army just started issuing semi-auto rifles only... haha

Seeing how they just started replacing the burst M4's with full auto M4A1 models, I'd say the big army disagrees.

Seeing how they just started replacing the burst M4's with full auto M4A1 models, I'd say the big army disagrees.

 

Maybe that's why they are sticking with the M249 SAW (LMG I guess they call it now) instead of the M27. 

 

(edit to add: the Army is sticking with the M249. The Corps is moving ahead with the M27)

Picatinny needs something to do?