Comments on: Army Opens Competition for M-16 Replacement

By: Murdoc

Murdoc — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 03:43:20 +0000

LJD: There's no doubt that our troops have been very effective with the 5.56. But that's not the same thing as saying that there's nothing wrong with the round. Many troops have been complaining for over a decade about the lack of "stopping power" with the 5.56, especially when fired from shorter-barrel M4s. I don't disagree with your submachinegun idea, though. Not one bit. Some US troops have been spotted using old Russian PPSh SMGs in Iraq.

By: Murdoc Online

Murdoc Online — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 03:29:30 +0000

XM8 will have to compete
Army opens competition for replacement of M-16, M-4 The XM8, which has basically been running unopposed to replace the M16/M4 as the infantry's standard weapon, will have to prove itself against other candidates.The March 4 âPre-solicitation Notice fo...

By: Confederate Yankee

Confederate Yankee — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 01:28:07 +0000

Poor 5.56 stopping power is the reason the 6.8SPC is currently being sought as a replacement in certain scenarios. I agree with Murdoc in thinking the 6.8SPC is a good compromise round.

By: LJD

LJD — Wed, 09 Mar 2005 18:12:05 +0000

Nothing wrong with 5.56mm. It's plenty deadly, just ask the resident of Fallujah. The philosphy is that lead is heavy, and a troop can carry more rounds of 5.56 than 7.62.

Perhaps in the urban situations we should be looking at short range, pistol cartridge submachineguns. The MP-5 comes to mind.

James, don't mind Ken. He'd rather spend the money on kool-aid for the masses.

By: Murdoc

Murdoc — Wed, 09 Mar 2005 17:52:58 +0000

Paul: The 7.62x39 that the bad guys prefer is not the 7.62 NATO (7.62x51) that we use for some weapons. 7.62x51 is too powerful for an assault rifle. 7.62x39 is too wimpy for general use as American troops see it. Though inside and in alleyways it's fine. A lot of folks like the 6.8 SPC as a good compromise. Others prefer the 6.5 Grendel. Almost everyone agrees that the current 5.56 NATO is not the long-term answer. And for those following BigFire's link, either search for "XM8" on my site or go straight to the X Weapons category. (and thanks for the plug, BigFire)

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 09 Mar 2005 17:49:34 +0000

Ken, Your expertise in the quality of military weapons would be what, exactly?

By: ken

ken — Wed, 09 Mar 2005 17:36:11 +0000

There is, of course, nothing wrong with current weaponry except that it has become too much of a commodity and therefore all the profit for the manufacturer has been squeezed out.

So if we go with an entirely new system just think of all the money and profits involved!!!!

Wow, and it might even work - ten years later when all the bugs get worked out. Now why exactly should taxpayers go further into debt for this?

By: BigFire

BigFire — Wed, 09 Mar 2005 16:40:15 +0000

You might also want to check out Murdoc Online. He's got lots of post on XM8.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 09 Mar 2005 16:18:23 +0000

And if we went to 7.62 we can use the ememy's ammo too.

not that anyone important is listening....