REPLACING THE m-16

PAPA G · 04-03-2003, 12:24 PM

Battle Rifle G3 is looking for replacement cartridge for the M-16.

lets keep the 5.56mm cartridge.

what type rifle would you like to see issued to the troops???

mine is a M-14 type (not a Ruger mini-14) robust and tough.

NRAJOE · 04-03-2003, 12:27 PM

Yup, M-14 with a synthetic stock...that weapon was awesome!

Stopper · 04-03-2003, 12:28 PM

Anything .308 and tough.

NRAJOE · 04-03-2003, 12:28 PM

Actually with a Hogue overmolded stock...would not slip around when wet...:right:

BattleRifleG3 · 04-03-2003, 12:31 PM

I could envision one technologically similar to the HK G-36 but with more metal and US specs.

Klaus · 04-03-2003, 04:25 PM

To heck with the .223. We need something like a narrower version of the .243 in a slightly larger version of the AR-18, with a big muzzlebrake and integral 4x sight.

BattleRifleG3 · 04-03-2003, 06:46 PM

See the AR forum under PCR-8 MAG.

whirlwind · 04-04-2003, 12:00 AM

anyone know anything about this new caseless ammo? i heard H&K makes it for the G-11 never heard another thing about it? hows it work? what caliber? it really sounds kinda cool!

7mmag6 · 04-04-2003, 02:15 AM

Iwas not going to reply here, but the m-14 is crap, you cant control it on amf, if seen it fired it, wont work, its a an m1 garand on steroids, its not the right weapon for our services, and just really heavy, its not the weapon for the future,

Klaus · 04-04-2003, 06:14 AM

I do not like the PCR-8. It looks way too heavy and expensive and STILL does not use a piston. Also, I do not think I like the ammo; the cases are way too fat, greatly reducing magazine capacity.

04-04-2003, 09:48 AM

because they serve just fine. In order to get compatability with the National Guard, you'd have to replace 3 million guns, and about a trillion rds of ammo, at a cost of about 5 billion $. The taxpayers aint going for it.

The miliatary misses with 999 out of 1000 shots, and most hits are just peripheral in nature. Less than 10% of the casulties on the modern battlefield come from the rifle. Changing calibers would do away with the .22 conversion unit, and that is a quite useful training-aid, especially on indoor ranges.

If the private citizen wishes, he can reload Nosler Partition sp's, and doing so makes the 223 every bit as effective a deer getter as the 30-30 ever was. So the 223 can be a very effective manstopper, you just have to load it right. Contrary to what everyone THINKS, it's perfectly legal for us to use softpoints in combat. We never SIGNED the Hague Convention, which dealt with such bullets, and the Geneva Convention never mentioned the subject at all. Furthermore, the Convention only applies to signatory nations, in a DECLARED war. We havent had such a war in nearly, 60years now, and we never will, with any country which did sign the Geneva Convention. All we dare fight is pathetic little 3 rd world countries, and we dont dare do that without first pounding them from the safety of the sea and the sky.

PAPA G · 04-04-2003, 11:08 AM

thats the idea!!!

if you could change the service rifle to another rifle what would that be???

also anytime the countries service equipment is changed whether is be rifles or pens, beans and bullets or what ever; eventually all will have the same thing including the NG's.

whirlwind · 04-04-2003, 12:05 PM

the launcher is being changed! i havent figured out how to put up a link here yet,...STOP LAUGHING! lol but for now do a google search on "AK-5" and read about it and look at the pics.

04-04-2003, 01:18 PM

and determined that nothing is enough better to justify the cost that would be involved. Like I said,not 1 bullet in 2000 fired from a rifle gets a solid hit on the enemy. The rifle is almost completely irrelevant to the modern military, and properly so. It just can't make any real difference.

For the civilian survivalist the AR offers many advantages that no other rifle currently can match, and any newer one probably wont, either, even at 3x the cost of a kit built AR.

04-03-2003, 12:24 PM	#1
PAPA G Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: somerset, kentucky Posts: 12	REPLACING THE m-16 Battle Rifle G3 is looking for replacement cartridge for the M-16. lets keep the 5.56mm cartridge. what type rifle would you like to see issued to the troops??? mine is a M-14 type (not a Ruger mini-14) robust and tough.

04-03-2003, 12:27 PM	#2
NRAJOE Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Toledo,OH Posts: 19,052 Images: 3	Yup, M-14 with a synthetic stock...that weapon was awesome! __________________ U.S. Army 1976-1979 237th Combat Engineers Heilbronn, Germany

04-03-2003, 12:28 PM	#3
Stopper Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Kansass Posts: 2,211 Images: 1	Anything .308 and tough. __________________ They should have stopped at "Congress shall make no law"

04-03-2003, 12:28 PM	#4
NRAJOE Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Toledo,OH Posts: 19,052 Images: 3	Actually with a Hogue overmolded stock...would not slip around when wet...:right: __________________ U.S. Army 1976-1979 237th Combat Engineers Heilbronn, Germany

04-03-2003, 12:31 PM	#5
BattleRifleG3 Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Western PA Posts: 11,401 Images: 13	I could envision one technologically similar to the HK G-36 but with more metal and US specs. __________________ Trust is earned, not... GIVEN away. - Worf

04-03-2003, 04:25 PM	#6
Klaus Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Cypress, Texas Posts: 2,383	To heck with the .223. We need something like a narrower version of the .243 in a slightly larger version of the AR-18, with a big muzzlebrake and integral 4x sight. __________________ "Gee, Wally, Eddie Haskel's mom puts out!" Last edited by Klaus; 04-03-2003 at 08:49 PM.

04-03-2003, 06:46 PM	#7
BattleRifleG3 Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Western PA Posts: 11,401 Images: 13	See the AR forum under PCR-8 MAG. __________________ Trust is earned, not... GIVEN away. - Worf

04-04-2003, 12:00 AM	#8
whirlwind Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: oklahoma Posts: 3,739 Images: 1	anyone know anything about this new caseless ammo? i heard H&K makes it for the G-11 never heard another thing about it? hows it work? what caliber? it really sounds kinda cool! __________________ De oppresso liber !

04-04-2003, 02:15 AM	#9
7mmag6 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 337 Images: 1	Iwas not going to reply here, but the m-14 is crap, you cant control it on amf, if seen it fired it, wont work, its a an m1 garand on steroids, its not the right weapon for our services, and just really heavy, its not the weapon for the future, __________________ This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine

04-04-2003, 06:14 AM	#10
Klaus Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Cypress, Texas Posts: 2,383	I do not like the PCR-8. It looks way too heavy and expensive and STILL does not use a piston. Also, I do not think I like the ammo; the cases are way too fat, greatly reducing magazine capacity. __________________ "Gee, Wally, Eddie Haskel's mom puts out!"

04-04-2003, 09:48 AM	#11
ohyeah Guest Posts: n/a	u r not going to replace M16 or 223 because they serve just fine. In order to get compatability with the National Guard, you'd have to replace 3 million guns, and about a trillion rds of ammo, at a cost of about 5 billion $. The taxpayers aint going for it. The miliatary misses with 999 out of 1000 shots, and most hits are just peripheral in nature. Less than 10% of the casulties on the modern battlefield come from the rifle. Changing calibers would do away with the .22 conversion unit, and that is a quite useful training-aid, especially on indoor ranges. If the private citizen wishes, he can reload Nosler Partition sp's, and doing so makes the 223 every bit as effective a deer getter as the 30-30 ever was. So the 223 can be a very effective manstopper, you just have to load it right. Contrary to what everyone THINKS, it's perfectly legal for us to use softpoints in combat. We never SIGNED the Hague Convention, which dealt with such bullets, and the Geneva Convention never mentioned the subject at all. Furthermore, the Convention only applies to signatory nations, in a DECLARED war. We havent had such a war in nearly, 60years now, and we never will, with any country which did sign the Geneva Convention. All we dare fight is pathetic little 3 rd world countries, and we dont dare do that without first pounding them from the safety of the sea and the sky.

04-04-2003, 11:08 AM	#12
PAPA G Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: somerset, kentucky Posts: 12	KEEP THE 5.56MM; CHANGE THE LAUNCHER....... thats the idea!!! if you could change the service rifle to another rifle what would that be??? also anytime the countries service equipment is changed whether is be rifles or pens, beans and bullets or what ever; eventually all will have the same thing including the NG's.

04-04-2003, 12:05 PM	#13
whirlwind Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: oklahoma Posts: 3,739 Images: 1	the launcher is being changed! i havent figured out how to put up a link here yet,...STOP LAUGHING! lol but for now do a google search on "AK-5" and read about it and look at the pics. __________________ De oppresso liber !

04-04-2003, 01:18 PM	#14
ohyeah Guest Posts: n/a	No it's not. They've done studies and determined that nothing is enough better to justify the cost that would be involved. Like I said,not 1 bullet in 2000 fired from a rifle gets a solid hit on the enemy. The rifle is almost completely irrelevant to the modern military, and properly so. It just can't make any real difference. For the civilian survivalist the AR offers many advantages that no other rifle currently can match, and any newer one probably wont, either, even at 3x the cost of a kit built AR.