2007-10-09 06:18:43 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
The M16 has been replaced. It just that the replacements were also made by the same company.
M16A1 fixed some of the jamming.
M16A2 fixed more of the jamming and added 3 round burst, and more range.
I have not worked with the new M16A4.
The M4 is a shorter version that has more range then the original M16 and M16A1. (effective ranges)
As for the 5.56, it is a good bullet. It was almost outlawed by the UN for being too good and doing what was called un-necessary damage. The 7.62 is good also, but it weighs more and you have to carry less.
2007-10-09 06:47:19 · answer #1 · answered by mnbvcxz52773 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Define a "new 21st Century rilfe"? The basic technology of the automatic rifle has not changed substantially in over 50 years. There is nothing really "new" out there at all. *****EDIT**** So you think bullpups are "21st century"? You do know that the British army nearly adopted a bullpup design in the early 1950's don't you? And the Austrian army has had a bullpup since the 1970's. This is not a new design philosophy. Just having the magazine at the wrong end of the gun does not make a gun modern. There have been and still are many reasons to reject the bullpup concept and many armies do reject it.
2016-05-19 23:23:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
they've been developing for years a new weapon system to replace the M16, but so far no new prototype have been able to outpreform the M16. And as for the ammo problem, 5.56mm is standard NATO. To change the ammo would be a monumental task and costly. people argue wether going back to 7.62mm or stay with 5.56mm. My advice: Do a new bullet in between those caliber. A 6mm.
2007-10-09 07:17:33 · answer #3 · answered by Airbound Gabe 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are always looking at that. The problem is if they go back to the 7.62 then they have to admit that going 5.56 was a mistake in the first place. The main qustion is, is it better to carry more ammo that you need to use more of to bring down a target, or carry ferwer rounds that will be one shot one take-down. O fcourse they shoul also look into going back to the .45 for a handgun. The 9 mil has the same problem as the 5.56, lack of stopping power. Most of the people I worked with carried the old m-14 and a .45. Sometimes older weapons are best, look at the .50cal a WW2 machine gun that is still the best thing going.
2007-10-09 06:32:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The 7.62 round is a better round for stopping power and more reliable, but the m16 is more accurate, I mean the 223 round used by the m16 is able to be carried more, it is also depends on the terrain.
2007-10-09 06:46:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
tbh i think 7.62x39 is the the way to go at least. stopping power is what a standard assault rifle needs. take britain for example. we have the shitty sa80 now when we used to have the l1a1 slr. sure the slr could dislocate a small childs shoulder but my god was it powerful.
2007-10-09 07:22:58 · answer #6 · answered by billythekid 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
hope not..M16 is an american legend
plus even if they do switch marines will still probably keep the M16s longer
2007-10-09 13:44:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
they are always thinking of replacement weapon's and many are constantly in development
2007-10-09 06:22:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They did that while back.
M-16 has NOT been standard issue for decades...
2007-10-09 06:21:33 · answer #9 · answered by Jeff Engr 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋