Long Term Rifle Decisions

[Targan]

New production would require a design that was streamlined for cheap production -- "good enough" definitely being the enemy of "best" in this case. For MilGov and CivGov, without any existing tooling for such a design, I think they'd be looking at some new design or backwards engineering something like an AR-18 or AK, with ease of production being the most important criteria.

(Emphasis added by me)

Once again I point to the Challenge magazine mini module 'Rifle River'. Anyone contributing to this debate who hasn't read it really should. GDW had obviously given some thought to some of the issues we are debating here.

Anyone who does not have access to 'Rifle River' and would like to read it, feel free to PM me and we'll work something out.

[Webstral]

No, it's a comment on what I know from personal experience. Note I also stated both the L1A1 and Steyr AUG are better weapons and therefore the statement IS in context.
There's no "badmouthing" here at all, just statements of fact based on personal experience.

Swell. So you have personal experience. Great. Except the thread is not about Leg's personal experience with the M16 or anyone's personal experience with the M16. The thread is about discussing candidates for post-Exchange manufacture in the US--hopefully on a basis more sophisticated than personal bias. Since you have stated emphatically that you don't believe any rifle is a candidate, your feedback on the quality of the M16 has no useful context. By the way, Legbreaker's personal experience doesn't add up to facts--not that you've actually given any in your tidy summation of the quality of the rifle.

Others may well have other experiences and formed other opinions, and as far as I'm concerned, they're entitled to state them.

Are they Well, that's generous of you. Thanks for granting the rest of us the right to express ourselves on the forum.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Time for me to get down from the parapet, looks like the shootin's about to start, and me without a flameproof vest...

[Targan]

Hey guys, how about when we feel the urge to take issue with specific posters over specific posts we move it to PMs

[Legbreaker]

@Web
Whoa! Calm down there, please. There's no attacking going on here. My statement about the M16 is not intended to insult anyone, it's a simple observation that every M16 I've had in hand has been crap. This may just be due to age and wear and tear in which case perhaps I've got some insight on what T2K soldiers may be dealing with Or it may be personal bias against a weapon that had sights and barrels bent out of alignment, loose furniture that would rattle with each shot further throwing off the aim, magazines which would fail on a regular basis, and were generally just rubbish and probably should have seen the inside of a furnace a decade before. Take your pick...

And as for "letting" others post, I thought this was an open forum where we are supposed to encourage participation I certainly don't agree with many things that are said, but I'm not about to stop anyone saying it. Who knows, with a decent, open and honest discussion, opinions and positions may be changed...on both sides.

Now, getting back to the topic of the thread, those M16s I mentioned are, at least in my opinion, what is the result of hard wear and tear (about 20 years worth IRL). They weren't all that accurate and they had their problems, but they could still kill almost as effectively as a rifle still hot from the factory. With a decent gunsmith, a tool box, and a supply of basic parts, they could have been refurbished at a fraction of the cost and difficulty an organisation in T2K would face in constructing a whole new weapon.

Now assuming those rifles are an example of T2K weaponry, and remembering that the vast bulk of weapons in T2K aren't anywhere near as old, can't we agree refurbishment should be the preferred T2K option over designing a new weapon, constructing the factory, sourcing and gathering the materials, supplying the energy requirements, feeding the workforce, etc, etc, etc Leave producing a new rifle until the country can afford it, financially, industrially, and agriculturally. To do otherwise dooms the recovery from nuclear war and it's aftermath to a very bad end.

[Raellus]

Hey guys, how about when we feel the urge to take issue with specific posters over specific posts we move it to PMs

+1

Guys, this is starting to get a bit ugly. Please keep it civil and/or move it to PMs. Thanks.

[95th Rifleman]

there has always been friction comparing British/Commonwealth kit with American.

America has to equip a massive army economicly. as a result they have an assault rifle that essentialy works but can be mass produced relatively easily and cheaply (sure the M16 is a bit complicated but well within the capabilities of America's industrial base). When you look at some of the other American kit, it's bloody awesome. A good example is the 50 cal MG, this thing is decades old but nobdy has yet built a weapon that can replace it.
Another example is America aircraft. Both Australia and New Zealand are quite happy to use American warplanes because they are the best in the market for the required role. I often wish the British governemnt would swallow it's collective pride and replace the Tornados and Typhoons with F/A 18 Hornets like the Canadians did.

Australia has a much smaller military and can afford to be picky, hence they went with the AUG for infantry and American for air force.

[dragoon500ly]

All the talk about the life span of the M-16 got me wondering...

To replace the entire weapon, costs the tax payer $586.00 as of the last congressional review.

The barrel, and this is very dependent on the type of barrel, is expected to last for roughly 100,000 rounds. This also depends on the type of ammo fired and environmental factors. In other words, it is very dependent on a wide range of factors....sooooooooo, roll a d100 I guess!

The weapon is supposed to be pulled from the units for depot level maintenance roughly every ten years. During this period, the weapon is broken down into component parts, and then carefully inspected and worn parts replaced as needed. The military purchases a fairly large amount of spare parts for these weapons so there is the ability to keep the Mighty Mattel up and running for some time.

According to a co-worker, several M-16s with serial numbers dating back to 1964 are still in service, according to records, turned over to various police departments.

I'm a little surprised by Legs comments about the condition of the weapons he saw, before M-16s are released for international sales, they go through a depot-level rebuild and then are released to the purchasing nation, unless they were transferred through a third party...but that would violate the end user's certificate...may have to send some bean counters down to investigate!!!

BEWARE THE WRAITH OF THE BEAN COUNTERS!!!!!

[Legbreaker]

Our entire battalion's supply of M60's was also worn out - we had a useless armourer. They were pulled from service and returned two days later as almost different weapons - all the worn bits and peices had been replaced by the armourer of the training unit were were with at the time.
This was however before we received the M16s (which had come from another unit which had received the AUG). We struggled through with them for about 3 years before all our L1A1s and M16s were also replaced withthe AUG, holding only a handful of the better M16's for M203 mounts.
I believe even those M16s are now gone, with the GL now munted directly on an AUG.
The L1A1's we had were as old, if not older than the M16s and even with our crappy armourer, still functioned perfectly.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

there has always been friction comparing British/Commonwealth kit with American.

America has to equip a massive army economicly. as a result they have an assault rifle that essentialy works but can be mass produced relatively easily and cheaply (sure the M16 is a bit complicated but well within the capabilities of America's industrial base). When you look at some of the other American kit, it's bloody awesome. A good example is the 50 cal MG, this thing is decades old but nobdy has yet built a weapon that can replace it.
Another example is America aircraft. Both Australia and New Zealand are quite happy to use American warplanes because they are the best in the market for the required role. I often wish the British governemnt would swallow it's collective pride and replace the Tornados and Typhoons with F/A 18 Hornets like the Canadians did.

Australia has a much smaller military and can afford to be picky, hence they went with the AUG for infantry and American for air force.

Overall I agree with what you've said but for some points, it's a little more complex. For example, the Typhoon is probably better suited to European needs than the Hornet is simply because of initial design criteria for both aircraft. Australia has typically selected it's aircraft from all over Europe and North America.
We've had/have British, French, German, Italian, Swiss, Canadian, US, Australian and New Zealand aircraft in the inventory.
There have been just as many British designs as US over the years. We've selected what we thought was best for the defence of mainland Australia and that has not always been a US design. For example, the winners of the last Australian Army helicopter trials have all been European designs.

When it comes to Australia's choice for infantry rifle, it's a bit of a mess. Originally, the contenders included the M16A2, the locally designed caseless ammunition C30R and its 5.56mm C60R cased ammunition variant (which incidentally went on to become the Bushmaster M17 rifle) alongside the AUG (I think there were a few others examined but I can't remember what they were).

The C30R lost out due to a catastrophic failure when ammunition detonated and the rifle was irretrievably damaged (along with the maker's reputation as many in Australia said that we had no ability to commercially produce police/military weapons - conveniently forgetting that the Owen Gun was the product of an individual and the Austen SMG was the product of a private company and not the government arms factory). It was, by what little info is left about it, a good rifle with good tactical advantages (a 60-rd magazine) and a significant technology leap especially considering it was made entirely by self-funded private enterprise.

The M16A2 was selected as the winner due in no small part to allow some greater commonality with our allies - specifically the USA but also Singapore at the time. The selection criteria also required the licence to build the rifle locally. Colt, having lost the manufacture of the M16A2 to FN-USA, refused to allow Australia to build the rifle locally and required that we purchase all of them from Colt.

The Australian government said no way and dropped the M16A2 and selected the AUG instead. The AUG has one serious issue which has seen an M16 variant used in its place, units tasked for amphibious roles (e.g. the Commando Regiments) typically use the M4 carbine. Apparently this is to do with the lower rate of rust buildup from salt water exposure but I've also heard concerns that the AUG body would fill up with water and not drain out properly (and would require complete disassembly to ensure all the internals were free of any salt water residue).


To (hopefully) put that into some sort of relevance for the thread, the Australian experience shows that it's not always such a simple choice in peacetime. In wartime or the recovery period just after wartime, the choice can be severely restricted and maybe a hell of a lot harder.

[95th Rifleman]

Overall I agree with what you've said but for some points, it's a little more complex. For example, the Typhoon is probably better suited to European needs than the Hornet is simply because of initial design criteria for both aircraft.

The Typhoon was as much a sheer, bloody disaster as the Tornado was a success. It's a warplane made by commitee and was obsolete before it even saw service. it was constantly delayed as interested nations kept wanting to add bits and pieces.We are stuck with it mostly because it's paid for and the governemnt has no money to replace it.

The Tornado was a great aircraft but it's showing it's age now. The F/A-18 would of been a great alternative to both untill the American JSF becomes available.

The RAF is a shambles right now, savaged by cuts and left wit outdated aircraft on one hand and useless aircraft on the other. It'll be like that well into the 2020's. We don't even have the ability to retake the Falklands should the Argentinians put together a force that can overwhelm the garrison there.

[HorseSoldier]

According to a co-worker, several M-16s with serial numbers dating back to 1964 are still in service, according to records, turned over to various police departments.

Several of the SPRs my last unit had were built on Harrington and Richardson M16A1 lowers, which makes them date to the Vietnam era. Of course, the upper was brand new and the guts of the lower were replaced (match trigger, etc.).

More recently my issue M203 for a while was Vietnam vintage, made by AAI as part of the initial 10500 purchased by the military. My specific weapon, S/N 5015, was made in 1970. Still worked fine.

[Mohoender]

The RAF is a shambles right now, savaged by cuts and left wit outdated aircraft on one hand and useless aircraft on the other.

I have no real idea about the Typhoon (I would like to know, however, why you said it is such a failure Despite the fact it is quite expensive)
but what you say about the RAF is in IMVMO (VM standing for very modest) true for every airforce (including USAF). Most of the aircraft flying today have been developed some 30 years ago and the only exception is that of the F22 Raptor (187 planned: must be a joke). F35 Lightning will not enter service before 3-5 years (and it is damn expensive). The PAK-FA will not enter service before 4 years. The Chengdu J-20 is planned to enter service in 7 years.

The most interesting surprise came from China with the Chengdu J20. I recall an exchange we had some years ago where most of us advocated that China wouldn't be able to develop such an aircraft before 2020 (they had one flying last year). For my part I thought it would come earlier than 2020 but not that early.

[95th Rifleman]

I have no real idea about the Typhoon (I would like to know, however, why you said it is such a failure Despite the fact it is quite expensive)

First it was made by commitee, the Tornado program was organised, streamlined and each nation had clear deadlines for submitting changes and inprovements. With the Typhoon the nations involved kept submitting new ideas and changes with no structure, forcing the design to be constantly re-evaluated. The result is an aircraft with no clear function, designed to do everything well while suffering from the same problems as most JOAT (jack of all trades) aircraft. The range is too low, the payload is too small and it's too damn expensive for what it is.

[Mohoender]

From what I read I don't see any substantial differences with the various contenders (altough I just went through a quick review on wiki). Announced payload is 7500kg vs 8050kg for the Super Hornet.

The main issue remains that of cost but what would have costed the closure of the corresponding factories We have had the same issue in France with the Rafale. It is also outdated and has needed a crash-upgrade program for the aircrafts sent to Afghanistan (in order to allow them to drop laser-guided bombs, give me a break that's too funny especially as they have since been replaced by Mirage F1CR). Then, in the case of France we are not even party in the development of any generation 5 aircraft and we are not developping one of our own. At least, the RAF should receive F-35 Lightning II withing 5-7 years. Nevertheless, I tend to agree with an Australian report I founded some times ago and which stated that relying primarily on furtivity is a mistake (That same report also stated that the F22 or the PAK-FA were much better than the F35, we'll see).

Concerning Air Force strength, the French Air Force still flies 306 combat aircraft (+69 for the navy) but that number is expected to be reduced to 120 (+60 for the navy) quite soon (Khadaffi is definitely the unlucky guy of the year). As far as I know, all major air forces have followed the same path. As long as we have the ability to fight on foreign soils with the full support of technology, it's fine. If someone ever manage to deprive our defences of that full technological backup, it's going to become fun.

What you describe for the Typhoon as plagued (IMO) all post cold-war aircrafts and, provided military planners are right it their assumption of future conflicts, it shouldn't represent much of a problem. Of course, we all know that military planners are always wrong (as demonstrated by the invasion of Iraq in 2003). However, ultimate success doesn't depend much on military planners but on the ability to adapt quickly and to mass produce military goods faster than your ennemy (as demonstrated by that same invasion of Iraq or by US and USSR in ww2).