Well, shouldn’t the next generation of rifle need to be targeted against the next generation of threat?
Wouldn’t taking out opponents with body armor be a consideration? Which other countries use body armor for their troops?
Or can we expect that most fights will be with poorly equipped insurgents at close range? In that case, the M16 sounds pretty ideal.
I suspect that they would switch to 5.56 rounds that are armor-piercing (steel core, etc.) before going to larger calibers. The larger calibers are more useful for increased range, which for the most part isn’t considered necessary anymore.
M995 Armor Piercing & M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round in 5.56x45mm NATO and Saboted Light Armor Penetrator (SLAP) in 7.62x51mm NATO and .50 BMG.
CMC fnord!
So, I take it that armor piercing is more a quality of the bullet than the rifle, then?
If so, what is in the rifle? Which properties would be useful to fight tomorrow’s opponents? And who would tomorrow’s opponents be?
Should the primary rifle be built for stopping power? Accuracy? Rate of fire? Ease of training? Ease of maintenance? Low cost? Weight and size of rifle and ammunition? Impressive looks?
A service rifle, first and foremost, needs to work reliably IMO. If it won’t go bang when needed, its other sterling qualities are moot. Secondly, it must have good ergonomics. Thirdly, it must fire a cartridge of adequate power. Lastly, it must be accurate,
The guy who puts a hole in the other guy first typically wins. The M-16 series does fall somewhat short of the AK series WRT sheer reliability in adverse condditions. In its mature form, though, it is reliable enough. It surpasses the AK series in ergonomics, accuracy, and modularity. So, despite the AK having an edge in one area, the M-16 surpasses it in enough other areas to get the nod as the better choice, IMO, as it allows the shooter to make the shot that counts first.
In the real world, cost is going to count for a lot. Ease of maintenance and training, too. In the end, there is no best rifle. There is only the rifle that most closely matches what you predict your needs will be. Historically, militaries have always armed themselves for the previous war, not the present one.
In general, the heavier a bullet is, the better it can overcome air resistance to travel farther and faster. Faster usually means more accurate and along with increased weight does more damage when it hits. So a big long rifle that shoots big heavy bullets can be very lethal at long ranges. But this has to be balanced against several other practical considerations though.
[ul]
[li]For starters an infantryman for a given weight can carry more small bullets than large ones. I don’t know what the standard was in WW1 or WW2 but most infantry today would be horrified at the thought of going into battle with “only” fifty rounds on them.[/li][li]To make a bullet go faster you need a longer barrel on your gun; this not only makes it heavier to carry but more unwieldy to use in close quarters.[/li][li]Stopping power is a combination of factors: how heavy and how fast the bullet is traveling when it hits someone, whether it penetrates body armor and how much damage it does traveling through the body. The last two lead to tradeoffs in the design of the bullet. A bullet that fragments easily will do more damage to exposed flesh but might simply spend itself against armor. A bullet that will penetrate armor might simply drill a hole through exposed flesh, doing much less damage than a fragmenting bullet. So you have a spectrum of rounds from fragmenting to non-fragmenting to armor piercing. Of course a huge bullet travelling very fast will be the best of both worlds as far as penetration and damage go, but that gets into how big a rifle and how much ammo you can carry.[/li][li]Rate of firepower has more or less maxed out to it’s practical limit. Full-auto assault rifles are difficult to aim due to recoil, burn through ammo, and overheat more easily than heavier, sturdier dedicated machine guns. Nowadays US assault rifles use two or three round burst mode and they have one guy in the squad with a full-auto weapon if it’s needed.[/li][/ul]
Huh. I hadn’t heard of that before. Looks like something out of Starship Troopers. Are the early reports promising? Is it rugged enough for actual field use?
Well, they’re field-testing it, with plans for full-army deployment. So yes, it is rugged enough, they’re using it in the field right now. And sometime in 2011, they’re planning on rolling it out army-wide, unless otherwise indicated. So that’s pretty promising. We’re past early reports now.
I served in the Canadian Forces as we were transitioning from the FN-C1 to the 5.56mm C7.
Absolutely no freaking way would I have wanted to go back to a 7.62mm weapon. Insane. Rate of fire and smaller weapons are vastly more valuable than the alleged difference in “Stopping power.”
If you’re relying on the “stopping power” of your small arms to win wars, there is something horribly wrong with the way you’re fighting wars. Small arms are meant as much to suppress as to kill with each shot. And, frankly, a 5.56 is gonna stop most people. It’d sure as hell stop me.
This begs the question of “if the M-16 is the better choice, why is the AK-47 still around and so popular?” The most common answer is “cheap” but I really question that. It seems to me that rebel groups are fairly well-funded, given that they can get rockets, grenades, and other expensive items. I know it’s not a fair comparison, but the last time I checked a basic (non-match or competition) AR-15 was only about 3 times the cost of an AK-47. I don’t know the answer, but I do question the cost as being a deciding factor.
My understanding was the ammo for the AK-47 (as opposed to the 74/ 5.45 or M16/5.56) was more plentiful in most parts of the world and it was easier to maintain for uneducated/illiterate/unsophisticated troops.
Also note that among the groups of elite professional soldiers who can choose what they want to use, like the SAS and Navy SEALS, the M-16 series is frequently their choice. AK variants seldom are unless the goal is to remain sterile during a covert operation.
Not to be snotty, but what ill-trained and poorly funded irregulars use is not one of my criteria for what is best.
Take a carbine class or two. You can’t really appreciate how much better one is than another til you learn to really run one hard.
I didn’t say the AK-47 was “the best”, I said it was “so popular.” I think it’s obvious by inspection that the AK-47 has a wide following throughout much of world.
Run out and take a “carbine class?” Yeah, I see those all the time at my local Junior college. Seriously, I don’t think I’ve even seen a “carbine class” offered locally in my NRA magazine.
My question stands; namely, if the M16 type of weapon is superior overall (given that it may be lacking in one or two areas), why does the AK-47 seem to be so popular throughout the world? Could it be ammunition popularity like runner pat suggests?
No, it’s just because the USSR made shitloads of cheap mass-produced AK-47s and then shipped them to any revolutionary group who sympathized with the communists even a little bit. Part of Communist philosophy was to ignite commie revolutions all over the world, so the Russians sent AK-47s all over Central America, Africa and the Middle East.
Then you aren’t looking too awfully hard, are you? The gun clubs in my area offer them on a pretty regular basis, often with with instructors who are big names and well respected in the field, like Larry Vickers for instance. There are also any number of dedicated schools, like Gun Site, where such training can be had. Training is readily available to anyone who wants it. I guess you just spoke without thinking.
A what now?
Carbine class.
Carbine class.
Carbine class.
Carbine class.
Carbine class.
Carbine class.
Carbine class.
Carbine class.
Carbine class.
Carbine class.
Carbine class.
Carbine class.
Carbine classes.
Have I fought ignorance enough yet?
Given that I live in a country where civilian ownership of semi-automatic firearms is so heavily restricted as to be effectively prohibited- and I’m pretty sure you know this- there’s really no reason to be such a dick about it.
A simple “They’re classes that teach people to effectively use carbine AR-15 and related rifles in practical shooting competitions” would have been fine, much more polite, and a lot less work for you than linking to a dozen websites.
Dude, if I decide to act like a dick, you’ll be walking bow legged. I linked to those classes because I was responding to posts from two different members who seemed to think I made up the whole idea of carbine classes while high on the brown acid. Proof for both of you seemed in order.
You should come here and take such a class. They’re especially good for pointing out to a fellow what he actually can do and what he only thought he could do.
I have to say I’m somewhat skeptical of the point behind specialist training for carbines in a sports shooting context- but then again, in this part of the world, when a shooter talks about a “Carbine” they’re usually referring to a Lee-Enfield Jungle Carbine rifle, or a .357 or .44 Magnum Winchester-type repeater, neither of which require any special training (beyond knowing how to shoot a bolt or lever-action rifle in the first place) to use effectively or competitively.
And it’s not so much that I thought you’d made the idea up as I’d just never heard of it before and was thus unsure as to what they’d actually teach in such a course beyond “The barrels on these things are shorter, so pay extra attention to where you’re pointing it because they’re easier to inadvertently point in an unsafe direction if you’re not paying attention.”