If the answer is "Yes," the fixes suggested, namely changing from open gas operation to piston actuation, don't seem all that daunting. How do we go for it?
If the answer is "No," should we replace with the HK416? How do we get that done? Some changes are obviously in the wind, but we are also obviously in the "confusion" stage. As far as the caliber change goes, both of the weapons in question are adaptable ... I think.
The M9 issue is perhaps more complicated. IMO, this would be a fine weapon, if fed with the right ammo, which is forbidden to us by NATO and the Geneva Convention. Can we change that? If not, then what? If not, with what do we replace the M9?
We need specific people in Congress who can help sort this out. Do we have 5 people we can trust?
There are a few mods tha that M16 family could use to improve serviceability.
However, the platform is a fine tool as it is. Adding a piston driven system would not be cost effective, nor necessary. It works.
Soldiers have died because the Garand (the world’s greatest battle implement)failed as well.
Too many older troops (no disrespect intended, believe me) expereinced major life-threatening problems with the M16 in Vietnam. The M16A1 pretty much solved those functional problems-chrome lined bore and chmaber, slight mods to the externals,and more QC in the ammo production process. Each susequent upgrade has resulted in a more lethal, user friendly modular system that plain works.
It's been the standard rifle in one version or another since 1967. We may have squeezed about as much out of the system as can be managed, but a couple of additional improvements do come to mind. With more than 10 million produced and most of those still in service, we can expect that one way or another, the M16 is going to be in service somewhere in the system until at least 2025, probably to the midpoint of the XXI Century.
If the answer is "Yes," the fixes suggested, namely changing from open gas operation to piston actuation, don't seem all that daunting. How do we go for it?
It's going to take more than that, actually, quite a bit more. See my comments about the magazine design in the post above. And the M16 is not particularly lefty-friendly, the *Brunton Bump* on the side of the M16A2 receivers to prevent ejected brass from hitting left-handed firers in the eye not withstanding. There have been a couple of troops blinded in one eye by ejected, spinning brass, not a real desirable feature in a combat weapon.
If the answer is "No," should we replace with the HK416?
Maybe some of them could be replaced with the HK416; I don't think it's ever going to be an all-services rifle, even though the SpecOps community likes it. Neither is the XM8 *just* the answer, nor the German G36s that are the weapon used by the Pentagon security detail.
How do we get that done?
I would strongly suggest a Divine religious miracle.
Some changes are obviously in the wind, but we are also obviously in the "confusion" stage. As far as the caliber change goes, both of the weapons in question are adaptable ... I think.
So is the M16, though it's better handled as an armorer's project during depot rebuilds with them. That offers at least one possible use for the 4.5 million old M16A1s in the national inventory, some of which the Navy has recycled back into M4A1s, and many of which have gone to Israel. The M9 issue is perhaps more complicated. IMO, this would be a fine weapon, if fed with the right ammo, which is forbidden to us by NATO and the Geneva Convention. Can we change that? If not, then what? If not, with what do we replace the M9?
And the M12, used by those for whom the M9 is overly bulky. Oh, and those SIG226s used by the Navy Seal teams.
We need specific people in Congress who can help sort this out. Do we have 5 people we can trust?
The problem is, they have to be both trustworthy AND knowledgable, or at least have at least one staff member in the right position to understand the issue. We've got one such running in Indiana's 9th District. And Chip Pickering from Mississippi's Third District knows what he's talking about, based on a conversation I had with him when he visited the Katriuna relief efforts. But I understand he's not running for reelection.
NO!
If the answer is "No," should we replace with the HK416? How do we get that done?
First take the ~spits to the side~ politicians out of the process! Listen to the troops not some politician or senior officer either one of which (speaking of generals who are superior politicians in their own world) might be taking kickbacks under the table from the arms manufacturers or folks with serious monetary connections to the contracts. Like companies who manufacture accessories for the M4 that would need to be retooled in a new rifle.
Get a bunch of troops and test the crap out of the weapons under real world conditions and situations from the testers experiences. Once the 416 is confirmed as meeting the needs of the service determine if there must be any variations for special circumstances (like tankers or aircrew) and issue the contract.
Trying to get better small arms to our troops is a project for a Sisyphus.