If the US military is going to switch to another rifle, what should it be

Currently the US uses mainly M16's And M4's. If they were going to switch, what do you think they should switch to? I personaly think switching to the M14 wouldn't be a bad idea. I think it would be more of a step forward than a step back.

(this is not a joke thread)

The Super Soaker 30.

This badboy 8)

they already did some tests wit hthe HK416, SCAR, X8, and one other. they all outproformed teh M16 and M4 but the army didnt want to spenmd the money to replace them. so they put the project back till 2011ish. otherwise tehy would already be replaceing them

The Super Soaker 30.

Samwel_X

good idea, but combat usually happens at ranges past 5 feet.

We should use rainbows.. because everyone knows guns are the cause of evil.

Lol

good idea, but combat usually happens at ranges past 5 feet.

megahaloman64

You underestimate the power of that gun. If you pumped it for long enough you could get a range of at least 15 feet.

Lol

He said Rifle not rocket launcher...

and I'm sure that the halo rocket launcher sure exists.

Punjabiking101

You could never go wrong with a LAZOR. 8)

The Mesmetron. :D

The Kentucky Rifle:

If the US Military switches back to these fine wooden pieces of ball shooters we can defeat the Terrorist and win the War against the Jihad as much as possible bringing us close to US victory!

[QUOTE="Punjabiking101"]

Lol

He said Rifle not rocket launcher...

and I'm sure that the halo rocket launcher sure exists.

WiiMan21

The Cerebral Bore, nobody would mess with that

Plz this isn't a joke thread, be serious.

It's all going to come down to politics with the Pentagon brass pushing for the XM8 since it's been their pet project for almost two decades since the Land Warrior Project was initiated. In the end, I see the fight going down between the XM8 and the HK416. The former for what I mentioned in starting. The latter for the fact that it excelled in most of the testings, most of it's basic components are similar to the M4 and M16 (thus the HK416 tag) and it's designed and manufactured by an arms company known for the durability of it's rifle designs.

USSOCOM units have already tested the HK416 in combat situations and have raved about its durability, accuracy and easy of use-and-maintenance.

The M4 is pretty much the best weapon for the job right now. Its cost isn't expensive and it does everything that needs to be done effectively if not better.

But I would like to take this time to note that we should just make a new gun that doesn't fire ammunition, but instead fires bundles of pennies at their maximum speed. That would be enough to kill any human being if you used enough of them, and instead of just wasting the ammo, we can recollect the pennies and give them to poor people so they can rebuild their country.

Plz this isn't a joke thread, be serious.

megahaloman64

They should get rid of guns and return to good old bows

The M4 is pretty much the best weapon for the job right now. Its cost isn't expensive and it does everything that needs to be done effectively if not better.

But I would like to take this time to note that we should just make a new gun that doesn't fire ammunition, but instead fires bundles of pennies at their maximum speed. That would be enough to kill any human being if you used enough of them, and instead of just wasting the ammo, we can recollect the pennies and give them to poor people so they can rebuild their country.

-TheSecondSign-

Well, Obama and his advisors have already put on the defunct shelf most research into rail gun systems so firing pennies at velocities that can kill will have to wait until a more pro-military and defense administration gets back into power.

It's all going to come down to politics with the Pentagon brass pushing for the XM8 since it's been their pet project for almost two decades since the Land Warrior Project was initiated. In the end, I see the fight going down between the XM8 and the HK416. The former for what I mentioned in starting. The latter for the fact that it excelled in most of the testings, most of it's basic components are similar to the M4 and M16 (thus the HK416 tag) and it's designed and manufactured by an arms company known for the durability of it's rifle designs.

USSOCOM units have already tested the HK416 in combat situations and have raved about its durability, accuracy and easy of use-and-maintenance.

Buck_Hotep

the US probably wont switch to a forign weapon because of cost reasons.

Doesn't really bother since I live in Canada.

Doesn't really bother since I live in Canada.

OnlyKurial

than why did you even click on this thread?

Currently the US uses mainly M16's And M4's. If they were going to switch, what do you think they should switch to? I personaly think switching to the M14 wouldn't be a bad idea. I think it would be more of a step forward than a step back.

megahaloman64

P90 secondary weapon, with m9 pistol and steyr AUG as main assualt.shadowkiller11

[QUOTE="Buck_Hotep"]

It's all going to come down to politics with the Pentagon brass pushing for the XM8 since it's been their pet project for almost two decades since the Land Warrior Project was initiated. In the end, I see the fight going down between the XM8 and the HK416. The former for what I mentioned in starting. The latter for the fact that it excelled in most of the testings, most of it's basic components are similar to the M4 and M16 (thus the HK416 tag) and it's designed and manufactured by an arms company known for the durability of it's rifle designs.

USSOCOM units have already tested the HK416 in combat situations and have raved about its durability, accuracy and easy of use-and-maintenance.

megahaloman64

the US probably wont switch to a forign weapon because of cost reasons.

They've already done that with the manufacturing of the M16 and the M4. Those two weapons are produced by the Belgian arms manufacturer Fabrique Nationale in addition to US arms company, Colt.

[QUOTE="OnlyKurial"]

Doesn't really bother since I live in Canada.

megahaloman64

than why did you even click on this thread?

To sabotage future US military operations in readiness for the great invasion?

Doesn't really bother since I live in Canada.

OnlyKurial

We are talking about the rifle we are going to use to take over your country when we get bored :D .

"The M14 is extremely heavy, not very mod-friendly, and not really a good all-around gun.

The SCAR is most likely what they're going to adopt, although I'm personally partial to the XM8, since it's lightweight, extremely modifiable, and isn't ugly like the SCAR (the stock looks like a boot)."

Weight wasn't a problem in ww2 with the m1 garand (16 lbs). Still it would be effect in places like the mountains of afganistan and long range combat. And honestly, I think stopping power should be an issue, thats where the m14 comes in. The xm8 is the g36 with a different name.

Plz this isn't a joke thread, be serious.

megahaloman64

[QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

Currently the US uses mainly M16's And M4's. If they were going to switch, what do you think they should switch to? I personaly think switching to the M14 wouldn't be a bad idea. I think it would be more of a step forward than a step back.

Saturos3091

P90 secondary weapon, with m9 pistol and steyr AUG as main assualt.shadowkiller11

[QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

Currently the US uses mainly M16's And M4's. If they were going to switch, what do you think they should switch to? I personaly think switching to the M14 wouldn't be a bad idea. I think it would be more of a step forward than a step back.

Saturos3091

P90 secondary weapon, with m9 pistol and steyr AUG as main assualt.shadowkiller11

Scar is also heavy, unless your talking about the SCAR-L, the SCAR-H and M14 are both Battle rifles, they fire the 7.62x51mm NATO full sized rifle round. mod friendly I Guess you gotta point. you should check out the newer versions of the M14 being used by the military they have some stuff but I see what you mean. how is poor all around? it has far better range and stopping power than the M4. its two big cons are teh weight and the weight of teh ammo( bigger ammo means either less ammo or more weight)

P90 and the likes are going ot get anywhere, there is a reason why we have standard NATO rounds and Magazines and such. why would they take all the time and money to switch over to a gun that not only fires a different round, but a round ONLY used by that SMG and the FN Seven Pistol?

"The M14 is extremely heavy, not very mod-friendly, and not really a good all-around gun.

The SCAR is most likely what they're going to adopt, although I'm personally partial to the XM8, since it's lightweight, extremely modifiable, and isn't ugly like the SCAR (the stock looks like a boot)."

Weight wasn't a problem in ww2 with the m1 garand (16 lbs). Still it would be effect in places like the mountains of afganistan and long range combat. And honestly, I think stopping power should be an issue, thats where the m14 comes in. The xm8 is the g36 with a different name.

megahaloman64

Yes, the M14 has stopping power but studies have shown that the 5.56mm round actually does more catastrophic damage to a human body than the 7.62 round the M14 uses. That's the reason why the US switched to the 5.56mm round and so has all NATO allies. Even the Soviet Union and now Russia have replaced the heavier 7.62mm round of the AK to the 5.45mm round.

If you're thinking that a heavier round is still more ideal then you'll have to wait until NATO decides to replace the 5.56mm standard with the 6mmx45mm rifle round that they're now testing which keeps the tumbling effect the 5.56mm round has when entering the body and enough added weight to add more power to the round.

P90 secondary weapon, with m9 pistol and steyr AUG as main assualt.shadowkiller11

[QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

Plz this isn't a joke thread, be serious.

Punjabiking101

I think its thread hijacking time.

What Rifle do you think the military should use for the zombie apocolypse.

[QUOTE="shadowkiller11"]P90 secondary weapon, with m9 pistol and steyr AUG as main assualt.-Apathy-

[QUOTE="-Apathy-"][QUOTE="shadowkiller11"]P90 secondary weapon, with m9 pistol and steyr AUG as main assualt.shadowkiller11

It's really only good as a back-up and even then I may choose to carry more ammunition instead of a CQB weapon that uses a caliber of ammo not compatible with the main rifle.

The Martini-Henry. It's great for shooting Zulus, Boers, Pathans, Ghazi, Gilzai, Sikhs, Bedoiuns, the Irish, more Zulus, Boxers, Metis, and also Zulus.

Everyone should get rid of guns and return to sword fighting, then see who the true victor is. :D

[QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

"The M14 is extremely heavy, not very mod-friendly, and not really a good all-around gun.

The SCAR is most likely what they're going to adopt, although I'm personally partial to the XM8, since it's lightweight, extremely modifiable, and isn't ugly like the SCAR (the stock looks like a boot)."

Weight wasn't a problem in ww2 with the m1 garand (16 lbs). Still it would be effect in places like the mountains of afganistan and long range combat. And honestly, I think stopping power should be an issue, thats where the m14 comes in. The xm8 is the g36 with a different name.

Buck_Hotep

Yes, the M14 has stopping power but studies have shown that the 5.56mm round actually does more catastrophic damage to a human body than the 7.62 round the M14 uses. That's the reason why the US switched to the 5.56mm round and so has all NATO allies. Even the Soviet Union and now Russia have replaced the heavier 7.62mm round of the AK to the 5.45mm round.

If you're thinking that a heavier round is still more ideal then you'll have to wait until NATO decides to replace the 5.56mm standard with the 6mmx45mm rifle round that they're now testing which keeps the tumbling effect the 5.56mm round has when entering the body and enough added weight to add more power to the round.

the 7.62 round has more knecitc energy to knock an enemy down so they wont get back up and shoot at you again.

[QUOTE="OnlyKurial"]

Doesn't really bother since I live in Canada.

megahaloman64

than why did you even click on this thread?

Because this is the interwebz. People can go where ever they choose so long as they have the power to do so.

[QUOTE="Buck_Hotep"]

[QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

"The M14 is extremely heavy, not very mod-friendly, and not really a good all-around gun.

The SCAR is most likely what they're going to adopt, although I'm personally partial to the XM8, since it's lightweight, extremely modifiable, and isn't ugly like the SCAR (the stock looks like a boot)."

Weight wasn't a problem in ww2 with the m1 garand (16 lbs). Still it would be effect in places like the mountains of afganistan and long range combat. And honestly, I think stopping power should be an issue, thats where the m14 comes in. The xm8 is the g36 with a different name.

megahaloman64

Yes, the M14 has stopping power but studies have shown that the 5.56mm round actually does more catastrophic damage to a human body than the 7.62 round the M14 uses. That's the reason why the US switched to the 5.56mm round and so has all NATO allies. Even the Soviet Union and now Russia have replaced the heavier 7.62mm round of the AK to the 5.45mm round.

If you're thinking that a heavier round is still more ideal then you'll have to wait until NATO decides to replace the 5.56mm standard with the 6mmx45mm rifle round that they're now testing which keeps the tumbling effect the 5.56mm round has when entering the body and enough added weight to add more power to the round.

the 7.62 round has more knecitc energy to knock an enemy down so they wont get back up and shoot at you again.

The 5.56mm round will do the same just from the shock overload of having the bones shatter, internal organs shredded by a tumbling round as it enters and passes through. 7.62mm round is great for sniper rifles not using the .50 Cal round, but there's a reason why most countries rarely use the 7.62mm as an assault rifle round and just relegated it to machine guns. Plus, with the 5.56 and, most likely the 6mm, a soldier will be able to carry more ammunition. Both rounds can kill, but ammo is the lifeblood of a rifleman. I'm guessing two expertly trained marksmen with one using the 5.56mm and another 7.62mm the former will still be firing when the latter has run out.

[QUOTE="megahaloman64"]

[QUOTE="Buck_Hotep"]

Yes, the M14 has stopping power but studies have shown that the 5.56mm round actually does more catastrophic damage to a human body than the 7.62 round the M14 uses. That's the reason why the US switched to the 5.56mm round and so has all NATO allies. Even the Soviet Union and now Russia have replaced the heavier 7.62mm round of the AK to the 5.45mm round.

If you're thinking that a heavier round is still more ideal then you'll have to wait until NATO decides to replace the 5.56mm standard with the 6mmx45mm rifle round that they're now testing which keeps the tumbling effect the 5.56mm round has when entering the body and enough added weight to add more power to the round.

Buck_Hotep

the 7.62 round has more knecitc energy to knock an enemy down so they wont get back up and shoot at you again.

The 5.56mm round will do the same just from the shock overload of having the bones shatter, internal organs shredded by a tumbling round as it enters and passes through. 7.62mm round is great for sniper rifles not using the .50 Cal round, but there's a reason why most countries rarely use the 7.62mm as an assault rifle round and just relegated it to machine guns. Plus, with the 5.56 and, most likely the 6mm, a soldier will be able to carry more ammunition. Both rounds can kill, but ammo is the lifeblood of a rifleman. I'm guessing two expertly trained marksmen with one using the 5.56mm and another 7.62mm the former will still be firing when the latter has run out.

teh fancy stuff teh 5.56 can do is at 400m or under. at 600m or beyond it doesnt have teh velocity to fragment upon impact. the 7.62 goes well to 800M and beyond.

There are new guns (like the scar and its variants) being considered that are better than the M16/M4. Personally though I think the current contenders are not revolutionary enough to justify rearming our forces yet (we are in a budget crunch after all).

The 5.56mm round will do the same just from the shock overload of having the bones shatter, internal organs shredded by a tumbling round as it enters and passes through. 7.62mm round is great for sniper rifles not using the .50 Cal round, but there's a reason why most countries rarely use the 7.62mm as an assault rifle round and just relegated it to machine guns. Plus, with the 5.56 and, most likely the 6mm, a soldier will be able to carry more ammunition. Both rounds can kill, but ammo is the lifeblood of a rifleman. I'm guessing two expertly trained marksmen with one using the 5.56mm and another 7.62mm the former will still be firing when the latter has run out.

the bigger round can also penetrate walls better, and the barret m468 (rifle that uses 6mm) wouldn't be a bad choice either.

And actually, most snipers use 7.62 rounds. you should check some military forums around the web. you can ask real soldiers which they prefer, and which they prefer to have the man beside him covering him with.

teh fancy stuff teh 5.56 can do is at 400m or under. at 600m or beyond it doesnt have teh velocity to fragment upon impact. the 7.62 goes well to 800M and beyond.

SamusFreak

Ideal and enough range for the usual grunt to take down an enemy. As I stated before, the 7.62mm is still used but mostly by snipers. The longer range for the 7.62mm makes it good for long-range targets.

i know, im just saying, while the lighter round and lighter guns are more ideal at the 400M range and below. the 7.62 guns still work at the short range plus the 600-1000M range. where the light 5.56 is worthless