Here are a few questions for our resident gunsmith/s:
Wouldn't existing supplies of M-16s wear out after years of hard use?
After at least 3 years of combat operations, with no significant influx of replacement parts, wouldn't a lot of M16s be breaking down around mid-2000? I mean, barrel wear alone would diminish accuracy, correct? And the M16 is a notoriously complex, hard to maintain weapon, is it not?
I'm under the impression that the U.S. army acquires and issues new rifles at least every decade, if not more often. Why is this, if not because of wear issues? Why not crank out replacement parts/kits instead? At what point does it become more economical to just make a whole replacement weapon?
These are some serious questions that need answering.
Let me reassure the neysayers that I think that the M16 would be around in large numbers for a very long time. There's just so many out there, both in military use and in civilian hands. But, I think that there would be very sound reasons for MilGov (and CivGov) to begin looking at manufacturing a large-scale replacement weapon in the early '00s.
The AR-18 is a good choice because it is easier to make, easier to maintain, and has higher tolerances than the M16 family. It can also use the same, widely available ammo. It would be a much better weapon for the very young and very old conscripts or civilian militias.
I don't see this weapon completely replacing the M16 in U.S. service, but I do see it complimenting the M16 in a big way.
I'm eager to read your responses to these questions.
|