Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: M16A?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    163
    Feedback Score
    35 (100%)
    Having carried an M16A4 for most of my 4 years in the Corps, I can honestly say that the 20" barrel isn't that bad. The single biggest complaint most guys have against the A4 is the stock. Shooting it with body armor on is down right ridiculous. While it would be nice to get new barrels, free float rails and all that, the reality is that the war is winding down and funds are drying up. In these times of fiscal uncertainty we really need to be looking for a "most bang for the buck" improvement. IMO, the M16A4 doesn't NEED a free float rail system. It doesn't NEED a different barrel. It DOES need an adjustable LOP stock. The Vltor A5 stock system is a viable COTS option that will net the biggest improvement in usability and ergonomics. Next thing on the to-do list would be ditching those stupid 3-point slings and replacing them with a quality 2-point.

    About the DD Omega rails, keep in mind that it likely can't be adopted as-is because it doesn't have a cutout on the top half of the rail for the M203 clamp. Take a look at a KAC M5 RAS and you'll have an idea what I'm talking about. I'm sure DD could come up with something if they were asked to though.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pentagon
    Posts
    497
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    The A4 PIP is looking at a universal free floating handguard (usable in the M4 also) and collapsible stock.

    During the M27 as a service rifle tests they did also add match barrels to the A4 PIP to see what the break even point would be cost wise

    They found they could get 75 percent of the capability of the M27 at 25 percent the cost.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    407
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by wild_wild_wes View Post
    He said the Corps was looking at the following options: heavy barrel, telestock, free-flating barrel, and adjustable gas system for use with supressor.

    What do you think of that? And more importantly, has anyone done a pre-clone yet? If so, let's see it!
    I think the adjustable gas system is DOA. I know they're handy and have some benefits, but I would imagine they would have a tendency to always be on the wrong setting. Also, a suppressor on the existing M16 would make for one long rifle.

    I'm just a square range gamer, but I would say if sticking with the A4 and 20" barrel, the collapsible stock would be the biggest benefit. Screwing around with a 20" gov't profile upper with the A2 Stock, I didn't see it to be bad setup (kinda liked it, really). The change I'd make to a personal 20" rifle would be the collapsible stock. After that, the free floating rail and then maybe a slightly heavier barrel. Not much though, I can't say I'd want to carry a 20" HBAR over hill and dale.
    Last edited by cougar_guy04; 10-15-12 at 18:57.
    "If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur."

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,420
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    I have carried a 20" AR with an HBar profile barrel over hill and dale. In my opinion, it's about as heavy as it can get and still be light enough for the rifle to be a practical walk-about. A "sporter weight" barrel would be better
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pentagon
    Posts
    497
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by interfan View Post
    Look at total cost of ownership, not just the individual weapon costs. If the USMC changes to a shorter barrel, then they have to get new racks, new vehicle mounts, new shipping containers, make more changes, obsolete a bunch of ancillary components that they would have to repurchase, etc.

    For a small service branch, it is a costly proposition and disproportionately more expensive than say for the Army or Navy to make changes since they have a much smaller budget/man to begin with. If they were going to make all of the changes, they could just switch to a MK16/17 or IAR or something as the costs would be equally unaffordable.

    Not to threadjack or move off-topic to a political rant, but the Marine Corps should have more money as it has been proven that they can do things much more efficiently and with much less waste than Big Army. If sequestration goes through, they're scheduled to be taking a huge hit; but the politics of that with the current admin is another topic entirely. /rant
    Changing to M27 as a service weapon, it was impractical for 2 reasons 1) it would cost over a billion to equip just GCE units 2) H&K could not make enough rifles fast enough to equip the force in a reasonable time, if I remember right would takes something like 17-18 years at their full out, surge production rates.

    As part of that evaluation it was determined that they could do a PIP with a new barrel, free floating hand guard and collapsible stock at 25 percent the cost.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    2,317
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    So, they could put any barrel on there, right? How about an IAR spec barrel?
    "The secret to happiness is freedom, and the secret to freedom is courage." - Thucydides, c. 410 BC

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    memphis
    Posts
    53
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    I too have carried a M16A4 for four years. It is perfectly serviceable. An adjustable stock like the A5 would be the only real improvement it NEEDS. The barrel is accurate enough for the skill level of 90% of the Corps.
    The Marine Corp is underfunded compared to the other branches, and doesn't see the need to change everyone's rifles. There are actually a lot of M4s in service in the Corps also
    USMC 0351

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    LV
    Posts
    755
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by R0N View Post
    Changing to M27 as a service weapon, it was impractical for 2 reasons 1) it would cost over a billion to equip just GCE units 2) H&K could not make enough rifles fast enough to equip the force in a reasonable time, if I remember right would takes something like 17-18 years at their full out, surge production rates.

    As part of that evaluation it was determined that they could do a PIP with a new barrel, free floating hand guard and collapsible stock at 25 percent the cost.
    The billion $ aside and H&K's production capacity aside, even at 25% cost (versus the M27) for the PIP upgrade, I doubt the money is there in current budgets to do a service-wide retrofit.
    Last edited by interfan; 10-16-12 at 13:16.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, Az
    Posts
    3,347
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Funny thing is my brother in law and I were in at the same time. He was a Marine and I was Army. He carried a M4 in Iraq and I carried an A4 of some type, when I didnt have a machinegun, the entire time I was in the Army.

    I have cleared a lot of building and done a lot of vehicle operations with a rifle. The only thing it really NEEDs is a collapsable stock.
    C co 1/30th Infantry Regiment
    3rd Brigade 3rd Infantry Division
    2002-2006
    OIF 1 and 3

    IraqGunz:
    No dude is going to get shot in the chest at 300 yards and look down and say "What is that, a 3 MOA group?"

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •