Is the M16 being phased out?

Question

I had heard this. If so, does anyone have any info on the new standard American rifle? Thanks!

Answer 1

while the 16 is history and the M4 the new weapon, I still say we should adopt the AK as they hold up much better, my sons and sons in law who have been and two are currently in Iraq agree. In Nam we first brought in the 16, it was fullof problems, particularly keeping it clean in the bush, it would jam, they fixed that but if you get up close would rather hit someone with an AK with real wood! But what do former grunts and current one's know?

Personally I loved the old M14, which is still used for snipers

Answer 2

Hopefully it is. The reason for this is that it is not conducive to close combat, especially in urban settings. While very lightweight, it is 39" long. But, it has great range. 500 yards for a single target, 800 yards for an area target.

The HK MP-5 is great for entering buildings, that is why most SWAT units use them. But, they shoot a 9mm round, and do not have the range of the current M16.

What they are doing is shortening the M16 so it will work better in close combat, but still have most of the effective range of the current version. the barrel is being shortened(reason for not quite the range of the current version), making the buttstock calapsable, and there are some other modifications as well.

Hopefully, they will work on the bolt as well. The current version will jam fairly quickly, especially if even the smallest amount of sand gets in the bolt.

Answer 3

Yep. The M4 is replacing the M16 in every branch EXCEPT the Marine Corps. The USMC tested the M4 and for whatever reason they didn't like it and chose to stick with the M16.

Answer 4

it is called the M4 the diffrence being the M4 is a carbine therefore short then the normal M16. they also have a diffrence int the rifling in the barrle the M4 being closer together on each twist. they have almost the same ballistic profile but due to a shorter barrle on the M4 max distance on point targets is lower 450M on M4 500M on the M16

ive heard alot of M16/M4 bashing on this blog.

1) M16 when it first came out was not issued with cleaning kits (nam) so yea it jammed like hell. after cleaning kits were issued jams almost all stop (unless you do something stupid with it ie stick barrel in mud). as well its not always the rifle it might be the ammunition. we fired british rounds (dont ask me were we got them) on a training excersie and they jammed the M4 up like hell

1a) i have personally shot the M16/M4 in combat never had a jam. on a firing range... well i dont know it was clean but jammed like hell. but i repeat in comabt never had a jam.

2) the 5.56 round isnt underpowered. where having the reverse effect. in Nam the ammunition was diffrent they used Tumbler rounds that wobbled as they were shot, which would go in the person and bounce around off bone and what not. the round used to day M68 ball ammo is designed not to have that wobble its high velocity its ment to penitrate armor. ok today the ball ammo is green tipped and all "line" infantry units get them. SF gets there pick, i got some tumblers off a SF guy once (there black tipped) they had stopping power. Albiet i have seen a guy that had gotten hit 27 times from a 5.56 and he moved probably 100 ft well they were being shot at him.

3) XM8 project was canceled last i heard. i heard that in 2004. also its not that it has *no* carbon build up from firing it does have it you just dont need to clean it as much. the project was cancelled because there was some questions about the trials and the way the military aproprations board approached the project.

4) M14 wont replace the M4 (in the army) they are issueing them to "squad designated" marksman the M14 is a fine weapon. also the person that said the M14 will penetrate iraqi buildings... man thats not true, M2's (.50 Cal) barley penetrates them. Ive personally fired the M240B at buildings and the mud brick building wins everytime. plus were doing CQB (close quarters battle) drills here you dont want a long rifle. also i have been in many engagments were firing was over 200M which the M4 easily touches. and i have done "road guard" with my unit. also i have fired the M14 as well as the M4 (and most other small arms used by the army) they serve to diffrent rolls the 14 is coming out as a sniper variant not as an assault rifle

5) not all units have gotten the M4. but i guarentee my unit was one of the last Infantry units to get them (they hate on USAEUR we always get stuff last)

6) OICW project was canceled due to the things weight and an inability to cut it down

Answer 5

If not, it should be. It wasn't a good weapon when the military adopted it. The only reason it was adopted was to save Colt from closing it's doors. There were other better arms being tested submitted by foreign competitors but they lost out due to Colt's being the "All American" manufacturer of firearms and were losing business to better arms makers, foreign and domestic.
Currently, the armed forces are having rifles being brought out of govt. storage and refurbished for reissue, namely, the .30 cal. M-14. The M-16 doesn't insure positive kills and wounded enemy can still kill you. Some terrorists don't even seem to slow down even after being hit 5 or 6 times by the .223 cal. rounds. (5.56 NATO) NATO 'figured" that soldiers could carry more of the smaller bullets which would make up for it's shortcommings compared to the bigger .30 cal. ammo (and the guns that shoot them) The M-16 is small, light weight, and spits out lots of bullets, but "it just aint what it's cracked up to be!" Over the years, it has been made more accurate and somewhat more reliable (in operation, not killing power.) but it still comes up short of being better than the M-14. Personally, I think the FN FAL should be adopted by the U.S. military. It's everything the M-16 is and much more!
An M-4, for those not up on weapons, is nothing but an M-16 with an adjustable stock and a short (carbine) barrel. It is NOT a "new firearm". It is nothing more and nothing less (except for length) than an M-16. It's the same thing made shorter. The veteran M-14 is bigger, heavier, and packs a lot harder punch (being .308 cal., or 7.62 NATO). That is what is being refurbished and reissued to troops who are dying (literally and figuratively) to get their hands on them.

Answer 6

They've done the R&D periodically, and they've given up again for now. The thinking seems to be that to make that big an investment, there should be a substantial improvement in performance, and the technology of firearms is such that, barring a quantum leap in an unexpected area, there isn't much room for the kind of improvement they want. Rechambering the M4 to 6.8SPC for some seems a reasonable compromise for the time being.

Answer 7

This isn't going to happen over night. The US military has invested billions in the M-16. Fortunately, the M-$ carbine fires the same calibur round as the M-16 and its parts are extremely similar. The basic difference is that the M-4 is a bit smaller in size and barrel length and therefore far more practical to the soldier ( easier to manuever with)

Answer 8

The Marines have no intention of replacing the M16. They are replacing the M9 with the M4 for NCOs and officers below the rank of Colonel.

Answer 9

The M-4 is working its way in, but I have a feeling that it is going to be quite a while before the 16 is completely phased out.

Answer 10

the m-16 wont be phased out for a long time like another person said the military has spent too many dollars on it. the next weapon system i have heard of was called the xm-8 it also used 5.56mm nato rounds but unlike the m-16 it did not use gas to throw the bolt back(which caused carbon build up in the chamber), but used a push-rod system. it also was made mainly of composite materials to lighten the weapons weight to below that of the m-4.