M-16 Replacement (yet another Popular Mechanics article)

And then of course, there's the new Combi-Gun that they're making for
the Army. Check out those 20mm smart bullets. Sweet stuff, dudes.

God bless,

Howdy!

> On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Buddy Chamberlain wrote:

> And then of course, there's the new Combi-Gun that they're making for

And you know what the first thing that is going to break down in
the field is...:)  At $16,000-20,000 a pop, it may be a little TOO much.

Recent articles say that the US has commited to 4,000 units by 2006, with an
option for another 16,000 or so by 2010 or later. We'll
see....

        Ken

In a message dated 7/15/99 10:50:39 PM EST, kwinland@chass.utoronto.ca
writes:

<<
Recent articles say that the US has commited to 4,000 units by 2006, with an
option for another 16,000 or so by 2010 or later. We'll
 see....
> [quoted text omitted]

That's 45,000 units by 2006. And comparing the cost to a stripped down
M-16
isn't realistic. Compare it to the cost of an M-16 optimized with low
light
vision scopes and grenade launcher where cost of the M-16 immediately
becomes pretty comparable to the projected new weapon. I am a fan of
simplicity in weapons. The less there is to go wrong means a simple weapon
works more dep[endably. BUT some of the features of this new weapon are pretty
interesting.

Howdy!

> On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 ScottSaylo@aol.com wrote:

> That's 45,000 units by 2006. And comparing the cost to a stripped down

Jesus, last year they were going to commit to 20,000 units (as reported by
Jane's and Popular Mechanics). They must be in love with this
thing.... :)

        Comparing it to a basic M-16A2 is fallacy, but you could sort-of
compare it to an M-16A2 with all of the bells and whistles, and the new
battle-rifle is STILL expensive.  I have seen footage of the tests, and
while it works well in "demos", I have no doubt that this puppy is going to
have severe teething problems.

        Ken

> On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Kenneth Winland wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 ScottSaylo@aol.com wrote:

Probably, but didn't the original (M16a1) version of the M16 have severe
teething problems as well? Jamming, breaking, etc? ISTR reading that in
Vietnam troops would sometimes throw away their M16s if they could get some
other weapon to replace it, or at least relegate the M16 to secondary
weapon...

Or the M1 - lots of people in the mid-80s were supposed to be slagging
the
thing every chance they got - now it's probably the best MBT going...and
it's expensive as hell, compared to, say, russian MBTs.

People /always/ seem to moan about new weapons systems - especially in
the States. Then the systems prove themselves, and the moaners shut up in a
hurry. (Heard anyone slagging the M1A2? Post Desert Storm?)

Greetings!

> On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Brian Burger wrote:

> Probably, but didn't the original (M16a1) version of the M16 have

        The A1 corrected the original problems with the M-16, which
indeed had some impressive teething problems, mostly during the initial 6
months of deployment.

Yes, almost any new weapon system will go through teething problems. However,
since the new system has a number of traditionally fragile or *very* high tech
systems, I believe the teething problems are going to be wicked.

> Or the M1 - lots of people in the mid-80s were supposed to be slagging

Actaully, they were slagging it in the very early '80s. It is keen, albiet
expensive, but it has a number of limitations.

> People /always/ seem to moan about new weapons systems - especially in

        ESPECIALLY in the 'States?  Try England with the L-85 or Germany
with the G11....:) Try Canada with their Goofy German Death Jeep....
:)

        Ken

In a message dated 99-07-18 02:27:13 EDT, you write:

<<
        ESPECIALLY in the 'States?  Try England with the L-85 or Germany
with the G11....:) Try Canada with their Goofy German Death Jeep....
:) >>

What was the Goofy German Death Jeep?

Perry

In a message dated 7/17/99 2:17:47 PM Central Daylight Time,
> yh728@victoria.tc.ca writes:

<<
Probably, but didn't the original (M16a1) version of the M16 have severe
teething problems as well? Jamming, breaking, etc? ISTR reading that in
Vietnam troops would sometimes throw away their M16s if they could get some
other weapon to replace it, or at least relegate the M16 to secondary
weapon...
> [quoted text omitted]

Indeed every new weapon has teething problems. WHen the British army
committed to the Lee-Metford bolt action magazine rifle, the army
pundits raised a storm. The soldiers would blaze all their ammo away with no
profit. The bullet was too small, the detachable magazine would surely get
dropped or lost. But the smaller bullet had much higher stopping power due to
velocity, the magazine didn't get lost when the soldier new he could blaze
away ten times without fumbline for ammo, and deliberate fire is the
infantryman's best friend, which infantrymen who live quickly learn.

The weapon will have problems, but it depends largely on the standard 5.56
round and weapon feed for the basic rifle. The sights are pretty derivative
from what has gone before. The only unknown is the 20 mm system. I still

think it is a little light for the needs and the 40mm grenade is going to stay
around for a while in squad use. There is a new underbarrel weapon with
a large bore that fires oodles of flechettes for sling under the M-16
which looks promising for area suppression. The new toys are complicated, and
often you want the weapons you can bury in the mud and pick up and shoot
without a jam BUT, the bells and whistles might keep more troops alive in the
long run and that is the point.

Isn't the G-11 that rifle with the mechanisms suspended inside the
casing to
reduce kick-back to almost nothing?  If so, what are the gripes with it?
 I
saw it in a book of modern sidearms, and it looked pretty sweet to me... The
other really cool european gun is that left or right handed
machine-pistol with the clear ammo clip on the top that has all the
bullets sitting sideways. I think there was a Pop' Mech' article on that one,
too...

God bless,
- Buddy