[Raith]

$.

[Paco]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Raith</i>
<br />$.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yup.  Think about all the $$ that has been invested in the M16 system over the past 40 years...  that's a lot of magazines, parts, training, etc...

It would be an absolute ENORMOUS cost to move the US Armed Forces to another weapon platform.

[PyroManiac]

i think it's cause we dont want our enemies confusing us with the brits and french...

[Ninja]

American service weapons have to be manufactured in America.  Beretta had to build (or at least use) their factory in Maryland to supply the M9 to the military.

Name me a company that makes a bullpup that's good enough to use and has the production capacity to make enough to supply the whole military that's in America.

The only one I can think of is FN, I think they have the capacity in the US. Their record on M16's for the government though, is suspect, I think.

[RickEJ6]

The past few M16s I have been issued have been made my FN actually. Rick

[SHIFTY1944]

I have always thought the mini-14 would make an excellent service rifle.American made with the M1 Garand based action...thats all you need.

[Firehead]

i agree shifty. mini-14s would make a great service rifle. its dependable, and long lasting. but i would jsut put a synthetic stock on it to make it more durable.  they need to give it full auto capability(make it like the M4A1).

[Holland]

I think it has a lot more to do with the training as opposed to the $$.  I don't know what perecentage of new troops have experince with rifles before they enter the service but I would guess more than 50%. I would also guess that most of this experince is with traditional rifles as opposed to bull-pups. Aside from combat arms units most troops in the Army only handle their rifles during basic training, and every 6 months at their rifle qual. range. The troopers pre service experince with traditional rifles and lack of "hands on time" comes into play in situations like Iraq where non combat arms troops are in frequent contact with the enemy. As to experince I am not refering to the actually aiming & squezing but rather the troopers overall comfort with the weapon in the high stress of combat. In the Army their are many more non-combat arms troops as opposed to combat arms troops. This is probably also the case in most armies around the world. If you can still follow my idea apply it to the whole Army and the rest of the armed services 1,181,613 per http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... st0309.pdf .
In addition to my theroy of experince dovetailing with training in certain case figure in parts, and magazines, ammo, as Paco sited above you begain to see how big of a task that truly is. Semper asked what is the advantage of traditional rifles vs bull-pups for the US? I am not saying that a bull-pup is not a viable weapon system for the US, it is how ever a huge task change over.

[azsarge]

Because the M16 variant is the sexiest goddamn rifle on the planet!

[RickEJ6]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Holland</i>
<br />Aside from combat arms units most troops in the Army only handle their rifles during basic training, and every 6 months at their rifle qual. range. The troopers pre service experince with traditional rifles and lack of "hands on time" comes into play in situations like Iraq where non combat arms troops are in frequent contact with the enemy. As to experince I am not refering to the actually aiming & squezing but rather the troopers overall comfort with the weapon in the high stress of combat. In the Army their are many more non-combat arms troops as opposed to combat arms troops. This is probably also the case in most armies around the world. If you can still follow my idea apply it to the whole Army and the rest of the armed services 1,181,613 per http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... st0309.pdf .
In addition to my theroy of experince dovetailing with training in certain case figure in parts, and magazines, ammo, as Paco sited above you begain to see how big of a task that truly is. Semper asked what is the advantage of traditional rifles vs bull-pups for the US? I am not saying that a bull-pup is not a viable weapon system for the US, it is how ever a huge task change over.  

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yeah, so far the friend of mine with the most kills is actually a girl who is a 2nd LT in the chem corps.  She took out 2 ambushers a few weeks ago while writing reports with her right and and firing our the window with her left. Hitting a target when you cant even look down the sights and with your off hand comes down to familiarity with the weapons system. Plus the modularity of the M4 is unmatched currently. And despite what anyone else says I have found it to be one of the best if not the best rifle that I have had experience with. (im intriqued by the H&K gas piston design though) The M16 platform still has a while to go before it comes time for a new rifle. Also the upped use of the M4 lends itself to the fact that combat in todays situations is mostly close up, where the benifit of slightly more accuracy is irrelivant.  Rick

[Harley]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Firehead</i>
<br />i agree shifty. mini-14s would make a great service rifle. its dependable, and long lasting. but i would jsut put a synthetic stock on it to make it more durable.  they need to give it full auto capability(make it like the M4A1).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

As problematic as the M16 line has been, the Mini14 would not hold up half as long.  The design is actually a combination of the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine.  It uses the Garand trigger group style but the action, gas system, and slide are from the Carbine.  There's too much pounding on the slide and receiver to hold up for thousands of rounds without a breakage.  

And I agree, we've spent so much on developing and outfitting our forces with the M16 rifle that it would cost way too much at this point to switch over to another platform.

[Ninja]

I think the HKM4 is a good development.

[TheCelticOne]

One of the biggest complaints lodged against the M16 is that it is fairly prone to jamming.  90% of jams can be fixed in a 5-step process (SPORTS: anyone gone through basic knows this), which can take as little as 5 seconds to clear.  On the other hand, while other weapons will not jam near as often, say a G3 for example, when they do, it's a mess.

As far as bullpup design, hmm...I'm still a little too emotionally attached to the M16 to admit this might be a good step up.

EDIT: fixed awkward sentencing.

[RickEJ6]

Good ol SPORTS. I have only had to use it once, and it was fairly easy to locate the problem (the round was a dud) and fix it in a few seconds. I have never had experience clearing many other rifles so I really cant compare it. Rick

[Basher]

Care to explain SPORTS? Thanks.