Is the M16 now obsolete?

OpticsPlanet Discount Code: MAC556

The M16 has served our nation for some 60 years. It's the longest serving rifle in American history. It's now being replaced by the Sig Spear / M5 along with a new cartridge, the 6.8x51. So the question is, has the M16 become obsolete?

#m16 #m5 #obsolete

[ChristMilitia]

Like Flannel Daddy said "When shooting a 20 inch AR, you turn practice ammo into duty ammo".

[philip]

Big army wants 5 foot tall 99 pound women in combat and at the same time adopting a super high pressure round in a 10 pound platform. This will work out great.

[brettbaker]

US Army-"We need a longer range rifle and cartridge".
US Army-"We'll still only train out to 300 meters".

[Smok-_-em]

My biggest issue with the M5 is the fact that they use 2 different ammo types/pressures for training and field use. It's like training with a 22lr with the intention of being proficient with 5.56, I'm worried grunts will be caught off guard when they finally shoot the higher pressure round when they are actually in the shit.

[cameronnorton]

I think the M5 is great for engaging at extended ranges, but the M4/M16 seems superior for almost every other practical purpose.

[triciaharrod]

I have come to appreciate a light rifle and number of rounds to carry - especially now as a civilian. The humanitarian 5.56/.223 works out great ... varmints and people don't like being hit by the round. Battle rifles are heavy and expensive to feed.

[NonyaDamnbusiness]

So let me get this straight - they're going to use a cheaper, lower-pressure round with lower recoil for training and qualifications then issue more expensive higher-pressure rounds with more recoil for deployments/combat instead of just using the deployment rounds for training and qualifications?
Yeah, sure what ever could go wrong with that?

[mikef]

I have a feeling the same thing that happened to the M-14 will happen to the M-5.

[Malkovich]

I'm in Australia, and hunt with bolt action rifles in .375ruger, .30-06, 7mm08, with my "weakest" centrefire cartridge being .22-250. Always cracks me up when uninformed idiots claim AR-15's to be high powered death machines, but those same people would be happy for people to own bolt action rifles, yet they don't realise that most of them are chambered in way more devastating rounds than .223

[davidcbrainard]

Just a bump up in caliber to something like the 6.5 Grendel would have made more sense. It’s a significant increase in performance at all ranges in the same platform. I’m betting the M5 never gets fully implemented. Like you said, it’s a step backwards to the M14 days.

[johndunbar]

I wonder what the velocity increase is in 5.56, if they did the case like the 6.8x51 and upped the pressures. If they are able to add several hundred feet per second to a 77 grain, I'd be interested to see how much better it would be.

[Robespierres_Ghost]

I think a 556 77gr high bc bullet would've been the best option.

[tmbxd]

It's not obsolete, and it won't be until there is a huge firearm technology leap (like bolt action to semi automatic self loading). You could use a 12.5+ 5.56 AR-15 until then and be fine.

[mrshort]

I agree with y'alls assessment of cartridge technology, just imagine using a cartridge such as that and raising the pressure of a 5.56x45

[acoustic]

The Philippine army still using the colt M16A1. The M16 still relevant in modern battlefield even the M14, 1911 or the M3A1 Grease Gun.

[shinigamis]

I don’t think any rifle is obsolete as long as it’s reliable.

[InGratitudeIam]

Cartridge development and a change in case material is really important. Brass is the most expensive "disposable" component of warfare.
I do think that the core technology of the AR platform will continue in one form or another. Eugene Stoner was a pretty smart cookie.

[jake]

Its sad to see it go. Its been such a faithful weapon and its civilian counterpart gets so much hate because of evil people. More of an ak guy myself i dont like the word obselete because it implies its usless. These rifles whether ak or ar are far from obselete. I wouldnt be surprised if its around like the 1911 still is 100 years from now.

[possumpopper]

I think the original M16a1 was the epitome of design. If we could develop/redevelop the 20” lightweight m16 with a flat top for optics, we would have something useful again. The ever shortening of the barrels over the years has crippled the 5.56 cartridge. A 16-18 inch lightweight that shoots 55 grain bullets at high velocity and there is no need for these high tech/expensive bullet designs.

[zertzer]

It will never happen, and here's why. They may make the M5 the new "Battle Rifle", but the M -16 and the M4 will never be eclipsed because of the cartridge. The 6.8x51 being a 3 part cartridge inherently makes it exponentially more difficult to field in great quantity. A 5.56 is just a bit of copper, a dab of brass with a dash of powder. You can crank that out 'til the cows come home. We have already. There's millions upon millions of rounds already out there, more than we can remember where we put it all. That is how you win wars. The new one is not only more copper, and more brass, and more powder, but steel too. It uses up too many resources. The M-16s and M4s will drop back to the role of a carbine, but it will still be around, and in huge numbers.

Even if you just fielded .277 Fury it's still a lot more than the 5.56. Give the M5 to the Frontline Troops. Give them to Squad Leaders & DMs. Some of the Spec Ops Team members? Sure. But for the main force and those in the rear with the gear? No. You can give the M-16s and M4s an upgrade to the 6mm ARC as needed. It's a little bigger than the 5.56 and you can only have 25 rounds per magazine. But it's still lighter and easier to field than the 6.8x51. There's no reason to replace them all of them with M5s? It's just a waste of resources. Why would you throw all those weapons and ammo away? Short answer is you don't. M5s? Use it where it's needed. But the M=16s and the M4s will become the new M1 Carbine, . The M5s will be the Garand, there just won't be as many Garands because we can't churn out as much ammo for them, and without ammo it's just an expensive club. More than 1 million more M1 Carbines were produced during WWII than M1 Garand Rifles. That's a fact! Can you imagine trying to give everyone in WWII who had an M1 carbine an M1 Garand and 30-06 ammo to go with it? We would have lost the war!