Long Term Rifle Decisions

[Brother in Arms]

Moe

Perhaps its because I have made several firearms which is why I conclude that it is difficult....and I think most people would be so busy surviving they wouldnt have time to start filing and hacksawing away on metal all day for months until they created a crude firearm. Also how many weapons can a factory with no tools, no power, no material and no skilled workers turn out?

But the greatest reason is..... Why does everyone think there would be a shortage of weapons??? Infact there would be way less people than ever before. And lots of materiel laying around with no one using it..at least here in the US anyway. I own over 100 firearms and I am by no means an ananomoly here in the US. Almost everyone I know owns mulitple firearms and that is just privately so lets look at armies...you have thousands of small arms and thousands of soldiers suddenly you have hundreds of soldiers..and thousands of small arms left over.... So I see no reason why to put new weapons into production. Unless you don't have enough firearms...that being said its almost always easier to fix a gun than to make a new one...

That being said you would see lots of zip guns, homemade shotguns,SMG,grenade and IED all where ever arms and munitions are hard to come by.....

myself I would try to set up a factoy to make ammuntion first...because that is what your going to run out of first and its much easier to make than firearms...

sorry I am being to real for a fantasy role playing game forum.

Brother in Arms

[HorseSoldier]

Something like the AR-18 or AK would be ideal for the production circumstances MilGov, CivGov, New America and other T2K era governments find themselves in, as well. Both designs are relatively limited in their requirements for skilled machinists and gunsmiths. Nor does either require materials only available in a modern import/export fueled economy.

[Panther Al]

I disagree with the AK for the same reasons as given earlier, Politics.

Last thing MilGov needs is to give the impression to the average person that they like Soviet (You know, those people that nuked grandma and grandpa, and killed uncle Jed and cousin Bill over there?) stuff. An American Design is super critical. It has to be seen as pure 100% US Designed and Made. Yes, it could be argued it is a waste of resources to start up Rifle Production as well as Uniform Production, perhaps even more important than rifle, but in this case public perception is more important. If people believe that things are on the ups, they will work harder, and be more upbeat. They will start taking more care of themselves and the things around them (After all, now that the factories are going, those damned chislers from the cities gonna charge an arm and leg for stuff, just you watch! And taxes! I ain't gonna pay no sales tax less I gotta.), they will start to look for ways to be on top when things really kick off, so they will be working harder, all very positive things: The mindset seeing more uniform soldiers and new rifles being handed out will all lead to this. Which makes getting people thinking that tomorrow will be better regardless is worth the waste of those resources.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Brother in Arms

Perhaps its because I have made several firearms which is why I conclude that it is difficult....and I think most people would be so busy surviving they wouldnt have time to start filing and hacksawing away on metal all day for months until they created a crude firearm. Also how many weapons can a factory with no tools, no power, no material and no skilled workers turn out?

But the greatest reason is..... Why does everyone think there would be a shortage of weapons??? Infact there would be way less people than ever before. And lots of materiel laying around with no one using it..at least here in the US anyway. I own over 100 firearms and I am by no means an ananomoly here in the US. Almost everyone I know owns mulitple firearms and that is just privately so lets look at armies...you have thousands of small arms and thousands of soldiers suddenly you have hundreds of soldiers..and thousands of small arms left over.... So I see no reason why to put new weapons into production. Unless you don't have enough firearms...that being said its almost always easier to fix a gun than to make a new one...

And that is exactly my point too. Where's the NEED? You've got a country overflowing with weapons compared to surviving number of people, yet food and water in T2K is at an extreme premium. The priority MUST be on survival first and producing the next generation weapon second.
The total military strength of Milgov isn't anywhere near what it was prewar either. Most of those soliders will already be armed, and even if only half of the weapons brought back from Europe are available to reissue, that's still more than the requirement. As has been mentioned time and time again, supporting troops can be issued with non-standard weapons, just as the Germans did in WWII. The uniform will in most cases hold more weight than the weapon they carry - a firearm is a firearm to most people and having an M16 pointed at you will hold as much authority as having a mini-14 shoved in your face. A double barrel shotgun commands more respect than an Uzi to many people also when they're staring down the barrel...

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Brother in Arms

Moe

Perhaps its because I have made several firearms which is why I conclude that it is difficult....and I think most people would be so busy surviving they wouldnt have time to start filing and hacksawing away on metal all day for months until they created a crude firearm. Also how many weapons can a factory with no tools, no power, no material and no skilled workers turn out?

But the greatest reason is..... Why does everyone think there would be a shortage of weapons??? Infact there would be way less people than ever before. And lots of materiel laying around with no one using it..at least here in the US anyway. I own over 100 firearms and I am by no means an ananomoly here in the US. Almost everyone I know owns mulitple firearms and that is just privately so lets look at armies...you have thousands of small arms and thousands of soldiers suddenly you have hundreds of soldiers..and thousands of small arms left over.... So I see no reason why to put new weapons into production. Unless you don't have enough firearms...that being said its almost always easier to fix a gun than to make a new one...

That being said you would see lots of zip guns, homemade shotguns,SMG,grenade and IED all where ever arms and munitions are hard to come by.....

myself I would try to set up a factoy to make ammuntion first...because that is what your going to run out of first and its much easier to make than firearms...

sorry I am being to real for a fantasy role playing game forum.

Listen to the working gunsmith, people! I think here we have the one member of this forum best qualified to comment on the topic of this thread.

Great to see you posting again Brother. You have been missed. So you're not up in Vermont anymore?

You're definitely not being 'too real for this forum' (and my feelings are a little hurt that you refer to it as a 'fantasy role playing game forum' ). Though we are in the minority there are a number of members who agree with your point of view (myself included).

I think if MILGOV (and maybe CIVGOV) do start large scale production of rifles it will not be until after 2001, maybe not for several years after that, and in my opinion the most likely candidate would be something along the lines of the M16EZ (possibly modified to semi auto only). Don't get me wrong, I recognise and agree with the advantages of the AR18 but it seems to me that putting together a production line for that rifle from scratch would be more difficult than gathering together existing (known) supplies of M16 parts and spares and recovering all that manufacturing equipment described in the 'Rifle River' Challenge mini-module.

Perhaps some of the posters to this thread haven't read 'Rifle River'? It is an important mini module for a number of reasons, chief of which (for me) is that it's canon. It slots in nicely with the first of the 'Last Submarine' modules because it is in a similar geographic area and because if MILGOV was going to be throwing major resources into the area to recover the USS Corpus Christi it makes sense they would try to kill several birds with one stone (attempt to renew contact with the MP brigade in the area, attempt to renew contact with the remnants of the Coast Guard in the area, recover the casts and dies at the Hartford rifle factory, etc).

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Brother in Arms

sorry I am being to real for a fantasy role playing game forum.

I think Targan already commented that one and I agree with what he said. For my part, I'm glad you answered my question.

[Raellus]

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.

[waiting4something]

Why do people think the AR-18 is so great? Its not a really a soldier proof weapon. It breaks and bends real easily. The metal is weak and so is the plastic. Yeah they where made for 3rd world countries because they are cheap and easy to produce, but that doesn't mean its a great choice. People like nice shit if they can afford it or not. In hard times like the twilight world that would really matter big time. I agree the M16 would be the weapon of choice in the U.S.A. atleast. They have too many parts and rifles altogether for them to be passed over. That said, I always thought the idea of the M16ez was stupid. Who in their right mind is gonna be cool with using a rifle with worn out parts or poorly made parts that is just waiting to go tits up? There is far to many servicable M16s, or other rifles for people to use.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by waiting4something

Why do people think the AR-18 is so great? Its not a really a soldier proof weapon. It breaks and bends real easily. The metal is weak and so is the plastic. Yeah they where made for 3rd world countries because they are cheap and easy to produce, but that doesn't mean its a great choice. People like nice shit if they can afford it or not. In hard times like the twilight world that would really matter big time. I agree the M16 would be the weapon of choice in the U.S.A. atleast. They have too many parts and rifles altogether for them to be passed over. That said, I always thought the idea of the M16ez was stupid. Who in their right mind is gonna be cool with using a rifle with worn out parts or poorly made parts that is just waiting to go tits up? There is far to many servicable M16s, or other rifles for people to use.

I don't think that the AR-18 is "great", just that it's a logical choice for production post-TDM. Once again, it's easier to make than the M-16. This is going to be very important post-TDM.

I've seen pics of Stoner rifles (related to the AR-18) with wooden furniture so brittle plastic shouldn't be an issue. I think plastics would be exceedingly rare in the Twilight World.

And al lot of those M-16 out there in 2001 are going to have "worn out parts or poorly made parts... just waiting to go tits up." I think that's why we're having this discussion (correct me if I'm wrong Web).

[waiting4something]

I don't think the M16 wears out that fast or most rifles for that matter. I don't ever remember M16's being out of action when we went to the field. The M203 and M249 yes, but the M16 no. Most M16's will out live their users as with most rifles. I'm sure they can down thousands of rounds before they start having fatigue. The only factor that is gonna be a probelm would be having gun oil or ammo for them maybe.

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by waiting4something

Why do people think the AR-18 is so great? Its not a really a soldier proof weapon. It breaks and bends real easily. The metal is weak and so is the plastic. Yeah they where made for 3rd world countries because they are cheap and easy to produce, but that doesn't mean its a great choice. People like nice shit if they can afford it or not. In hard times like the twilight world that would really matter big time. I agree the M16 would be the weapon of choice in the U.S.A. atleast. They have too many parts and rifles altogether for them to be passed over. That said, I always thought the idea of the M16ez was stupid. Who in their right mind is gonna be cool with using a rifle with worn out parts or poorly made parts that is just waiting to go tits up? There is far to many servicable M16s, or other rifles for people to use.

In the UK it isn't perfect but it is practical - see discussion as to it being used by the British Army.

The M16EZ was a cute idea for background, analyzed it isn't perfect in logic but it does give some wonderful flavour to the background.

[Legbreaker]

Every M16 I've ever laid hands on has been a piece of complete and utter rubbish. A FAR inferior weapon to either the L1A1 and F88 Steyr AUG's we were using, sometimes alongside.

How many rounds is each M16A2 barrel rated for? Is it really likely that rear area weapons would have seen anywhere near this usage, even on the range?

Going back to my grandfather again, in WWII he was stationed to a radar unit - they'd fly their Beaufort bomber around as a target for calibration of the long range radars. The majority of his time was spend away from combat zones, however he still managed to wear out 2 barrels on his SMLE - probably due to the fact that the rifles issued at the time were made cheaper, with thinner barrel walls and lower quality metal, and he was firing scavenged AP and Incendiary rounds...

However, that illustrates another point - wartime production, even in a non-nuked setting, means corners are cut to save scarce materials. ANY production late in the T2K war, and in the decades after it, it also going to have to make some tough choices when it comes to raw material quality.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Every M16 I've ever laid hands on has been a piece of complete and utter rubbish. A FAR inferior weapon to either the L1A1 and F88 Steyr AUG's we were using, sometimes alongside.

Leg, is this another one of those moments when you declare that the US Navy is cruising around in rust buckets-cum-death traps? Your observation, though not without its merit, is beside the point. Now, if you were to include something useful, such as a personal opinion that the M1 is a better weapon, then your remarks about the M16 would have a context in which they would have serve useful purpose. Since, however, you have repeatedly denounced the idea that there is any need for the manufacture of a new service rifle for Milgov-backed forces for many years to come, and since that is the subject of this thread, your observations are just more of the badmouthing of American equipment we’ve been hearing from you for years. If you insist on offering negative opinion of US gear on the slightest pretext, I recommend that you start a separate thread for that purpose and quit trying to hijack mine for the purpose of venting your spleen.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

How many rounds is each M16A2 barrel rated for? Is it really likely that rear area weapons would have seen anywhere near this usage, even on the range?

This is a reasonable question for which I have no ready answer.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

However, that illustrates another point - wartime production, even in a non-nuked setting, means corners are cut to save scarce materials. ANY production late in the T2K war, and in the decades after it, it also going to have to make some tough choices when it comes to raw material quality.

This is the kind of contribution I have been hoping for. Your earlier observations about the energy requirements of aluminum manufacturing, among others, are also valuable contributions.

Webstral

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Leg, is this another one of those moments when you declare that the US Navy is cruising around in rust buckets-cum-death traps? Your observation, though not without its merit, is beside the point. Now, if you were to include something useful, such as a personal opinion that the M1 is a better weapon, then your remarks about the M16 would have a context in which they would have serve useful purpose.

No, it's a comment on what I know from personal experience. Note I also stated both the L1A1 and Steyr AUG are better weapons and therefore the statement IS in context.
There's no "badmouthing" here at all, just statements of fact based on personal experience. Others may well have other experiences and formed other opinions, and as far as I'm concerned, they're entitled to state them.

[HorseSoldier]

I don't think the M16 wears out that fast or most rifles for that matter. I don't ever remember M16's being out of action when we went to the field.

You run them hard enough, they'll break (as will AKs or anything else made by man). This won't be aided at all by shooting reloaded ammo manufactured to looser tolerances than factory spec ammunition. The reason that almost all the Garands offered for sale by CMP today are mixmasters from an assortment of manufacturers is not because that's how they built Garands back in the day, it's because after service in WW2 and then Korea rifles were pulled out of service and sent to be repaired and rearsenaled. Many of those weapons probably didn't need it, but that process should shed some light on how hard wartime service can be on a weapon.

Add in normal wartime attrition -- weapons lost, damaged, or destroyed on the battlefield or elsewhere and you've got a reasonable need for additional weapons (hence, for instance, the M16EZ). Add in the fact that neither MilGov, nor CivGov, nor anybody else has unfettered control and access to pre-war stockpiles of rifles any more than they have access to anything else and you've probably got a situation where there are a lot of M16s and M4s floating around in CONUS, but not much to speak of for warehoused weapons and spare parts at the command of MilGov ready to equip refilled ranks of military units. And a situation where MilGov and CivGov both need weapons -- whether that means finding enough parts or machinery to make new M16s, or a new design, or whatever.

I don't see any new production M16s coming off a production line anytime in the early 21st century. The design requires too much quality aluminum and other relative exotics to field. I see it being the mainstay of MilGov and CivGov (and common with New America and various warlords, etc.) but as far as production goes it is a legacy system and operating costs will rise as time goes on. Fabricating replacement pins and springs is feasible, but other components like bolts will be rather more problematic. Building or rebuilding rifles from used or new components that are available is a possible partial solution, if the faction in question has access to someplace where parts are stockpiled.

New production would require a design that was streamlined for cheap production -- "good enough" definitely being the enemy of "best" in this case. For MilGov and CivGov, without any existing tooling for such a design, I think they'd be looking at some new design or backwards engineering something like an AR-18 or AK, with ease of production being the most important criteria. (And I agree that a copy of an AK wouldn't work, for political/appearance reasons, but cosmetic differences could easily cover up something close to a direct copy internally -- i.e. the Galil or even more so the Sig 550 series.)

It's entirely possible, given how fragmented things are circa 2000, that you'd have a situation where different cantonments loyal to the same government would be pursuing different solutions to the same problem. You might have a cantonment on the east coast that was supplementing their M16s with FAMAS they traded with the French for, one in the middle of the country that had access to enough intact rifles or spare parts that they were able to get by with nothing but M16s, and a third on the west coast that was making a pressed/stamped select fire 5.56mm rifle similar to the StG-44/AK/AR-18 to supplement their 16s.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

New production would require a design that was streamlined for cheap production -- "good enough" definitely being the enemy of "best" in this case. For MilGov and CivGov, without any existing tooling for such a design, I think they'd be looking at some new design or backwards engineering something like an AR-18 or AK, with ease of production being the most important criteria.

(Emphasis added by me)

Once again I point to the Challenge magazine mini module 'Rifle River'. Anyone contributing to this debate who hasn't read it really should. GDW had obviously given some thought to some of the issues we are debating here.

Anyone who does not have access to 'Rifle River' and would like to read it, feel free to PM me and we'll work something out.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

No, it's a comment on what I know from personal experience. Note I also stated both the L1A1 and Steyr AUG are better weapons and therefore the statement IS in context.
There's no "badmouthing" here at all, just statements of fact based on personal experience.

Swell. So you have personal experience. Great. Except the thread is not about Leg's personal experience with the M16 or anyone's personal experience with the M16. The thread is about discussing candidates for post-Exchange manufacture in the US--hopefully on a basis more sophisticated than personal bias. Since you have stated emphatically that you don't believe any rifle is a candidate, your feedback on the quality of the M16 has no useful context. By the way, Legbreaker's personal experience doesn't add up to facts--not that you've actually given any in your tidy summation of the quality of the rifle.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Others may well have other experiences and formed other opinions, and as far as I'm concerned, they're entitled to state them.

Are they? Well, that's generous of you. Thanks for granting the rest of us the right to express ourselves on the forum.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Time for me to get down from the parapet, looks like the shootin's about to start, and me without a flameproof vest...

[Targan]

Hey guys, how about when we feel the urge to take issue with specific posters over specific posts we move it to PMs?

[Legbreaker]

@Web
Whoa! Calm down there, please. There's no attacking going on here. My statement about the M16 is not intended to insult anyone, it's a simple observation that every M16 I've had in hand has been crap. This may just be due to age and wear and tear in which case perhaps I've got some insight on what T2K soldiers may be dealing with? Or it may be personal bias against a weapon that had sights and barrels bent out of alignment, loose furniture that would rattle with each shot further throwing off the aim, magazines which would fail on a regular basis, and were generally just rubbish and probably should have seen the inside of a furnace a decade before. Take your pick...

And as for "letting" others post, I thought this was an open forum where we are supposed to encourage participation? I certainly don't agree with many things that are said, but I'm not about to stop anyone saying it. Who knows, with a decent, open and honest discussion, opinions and positions may be changed...on both sides.

Now, getting back to the topic of the thread, those M16s I mentioned are, at least in my opinion, what is the result of hard wear and tear (about 20 years worth IRL). They weren't all that accurate and they had their problems, but they could still kill almost as effectively as a rifle still hot from the factory. With a decent gunsmith, a tool box, and a supply of basic parts, they could have been refurbished at a fraction of the cost and difficulty an organisation in T2K would face in constructing a whole new weapon.

Now assuming those rifles are an example of T2K weaponry, and remembering that the vast bulk of weapons in T2K aren't anywhere near as old, can't we agree refurbishment should be the preferred T2K option over designing a new weapon, constructing the factory, sourcing and gathering the materials, supplying the energy requirements, feeding the workforce, etc, etc, etc? Leave producing a new rifle until the country can afford it, financially, industrially, and agriculturally. To do otherwise dooms the recovery from nuclear war and it's aftermath to a very bad end.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Targan

Hey guys, how about when we feel the urge to take issue with specific posters over specific posts we move it to PMs?

+1

Guys, this is starting to get a bit ugly. Please keep it civil and/or move it to PMs. Thanks.

[95th Rifleman]

there has always been friction comparing British/Commonwealth kit with American.

America has to equip a massive army economicly. as a result they have an assault rifle that essentialy works but can be mass produced relatively easily and cheaply (sure the M16 is a bit complicated but well within the capabilities of America's industrial base). When you look at some of the other American kit, it's bloody awesome. A good example is the 50 cal MG, this thing is decades old but nobdy has yet built a weapon that can replace it.
Another example is America aircraft. Both Australia and New Zealand are quite happy to use American warplanes because they are the best in the market for the required role. I often wish the British governemnt would swallow it's collective pride and replace the Tornados and Typhoons with F/A 18 Hornets like the Canadians did.

Australia has a much smaller military and can afford to be picky, hence they went with the AUG for infantry and American for air force.

[dragoon500ly]

All the talk about the life span of the M-16 got me wondering...

To replace the entire weapon, costs the tax payer $586.00 as of the last congressional review.

The barrel, and this is very dependent on the type of barrel, is expected to last for roughly 100,000 rounds. This also depends on the type of ammo fired and environmental factors. In other words, it is very dependent on a wide range of factors....sooooooooo, roll a d100 I guess!

The weapon is supposed to be pulled from the units for depot level maintenance roughly every ten years. During this period, the weapon is broken down into component parts, and then carefully inspected and worn parts replaced as needed. The military purchases a fairly large amount of spare parts for these weapons so there is the ability to keep the Mighty Mattel up and running for some time.

According to a co-worker, several M-16s with serial numbers dating back to 1964 are still in service, according to records, turned over to various police departments.

I'm a little surprised by Legs comments about the condition of the weapons he saw, before M-16s are released for international sales, they go through a depot-level rebuild and then are released to the purchasing nation, unless they were transferred through a third party...but that would violate the end user's certificate...may have to send some bean counters down to investigate!!!

BEWARE THE WRAITH OF THE BEAN COUNTERS!!!!!

[Legbreaker]

Our entire battalion's supply of M60's was also worn out - we had a useless armourer. They were pulled from service and returned two days later as almost different weapons - all the worn bits and peices had been replaced by the armourer of the training unit were were with at the time.
This was however before we received the M16s (which had come from another unit which had received the AUG). We struggled through with them for about 3 years before all our L1A1s and M16s were also replaced withthe AUG, holding only a handful of the better M16's for M203 mounts.
I believe even those M16s are now gone, with the GL now munted directly on an AUG.
The L1A1's we had were as old, if not older than the M16s and even with our crappy armourer, still functioned perfectly.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

there has always been friction comparing British/Commonwealth kit with American.

America has to equip a massive army economicly. as a result they have an assault rifle that essentialy works but can be mass produced relatively easily and cheaply (sure the M16 is a bit complicated but well within the capabilities of America's industrial base). When you look at some of the other American kit, it's bloody awesome. A good example is the 50 cal MG, this thing is decades old but nobdy has yet built a weapon that can replace it.
Another example is America aircraft. Both Australia and New Zealand are quite happy to use American warplanes because they are the best in the market for the required role. I often wish the British governemnt would swallow it's collective pride and replace the Tornados and Typhoons with F/A 18 Hornets like the Canadians did.

Australia has a much smaller military and can afford to be picky, hence they went with the AUG for infantry and American for air force.

Overall I agree with what you've said but for some points, it's a little more complex. For example, the Typhoon is probably better suited to European needs than the Hornet is simply because of initial design criteria for both aircraft. Australia has typically selected it's aircraft from all over Europe and North America.
We've had/have British, French, German, Italian, Swiss, Canadian, US, Australian and New Zealand aircraft in the inventory.
There have been just as many British designs as US over the years. We've selected what we thought was best for the defence of mainland Australia and that has not always been a US design. For example, the winners of the last Australian Army helicopter trials have all been European designs.

When it comes to Australia's choice for infantry rifle, it's a bit of a mess. Originally, the contenders included the M16A2, the locally designed caseless ammunition C30R and its 5.56mm C60R cased ammunition variant (which incidentally went on to become the Bushmaster M17 rifle) alongside the AUG (I think there were a few others examined but I can't remember what they were).

The C30R lost out due to a catastrophic failure when ammunition detonated and the rifle was irretrievably damaged (along with the maker's reputation as many in Australia said that we had no ability to commercially produce police/military weapons - conveniently forgetting that the Owen Gun was the product of an individual and the Austen SMG was the product of a private company and not the government arms factory). It was, by what little info is left about it, a good rifle with good tactical advantages (a 60-rd magazine) and a significant technology leap especially considering it was made entirely by self-funded private enterprise.

The M16A2 was selected as the winner due in no small part to allow some greater commonality with our allies - specifically the USA but also Singapore at the time. The selection criteria also required the licence to build the rifle locally. Colt, having lost the manufacture of the M16A2 to FN-USA, refused to allow Australia to build the rifle locally and required that we purchase all of them from Colt.

The Australian government said no way and dropped the M16A2 and selected the AUG instead. The AUG has one serious issue which has seen an M16 variant used in its place, units tasked for amphibious roles (e.g. the Commando Regiments) typically use the M4 carbine. Apparently this is to do with the lower rate of rust buildup from salt water exposure but I've also heard concerns that the AUG body would fill up with water and not drain out properly (and would require complete disassembly to ensure all the internals were free of any salt water residue).


To (hopefully) put that into some sort of relevance for the thread, the Australian experience shows that it's not always such a simple choice in peacetime. In wartime or the recovery period just after wartime, the choice can be severely restricted and maybe a hell of a lot harder.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Overall I agree with what you've said but for some points, it's a little more complex. For example, the Typhoon is probably better suited to European needs than the Hornet is simply because of initial design criteria for both aircraft.

The Typhoon was as much a sheer, bloody disaster as the Tornado was a success. It's a warplane made by commitee and was obsolete before it even saw service. it was constantly delayed as interested nations kept wanting to add bits and pieces.We are stuck with it mostly because it's paid for and the governemnt has no money to replace it.

The Tornado was a great aircraft but it's showing it's age now. The F/A-18 would of been a great alternative to both untill the American JSF becomes available.

The RAF is a shambles right now, savaged by cuts and left wit outdated aircraft on one hand and useless aircraft on the other. It'll be like that well into the 2020's. We don't even have the ability to retake the Falklands should the Argentinians put together a force that can overwhelm the garrison there.

[HorseSoldier]

According to a co-worker, several M-16s with serial numbers dating back to 1964 are still in service, according to records, turned over to various police departments.

Several of the SPRs my last unit had were built on Harrington and Richardson M16A1 lowers, which makes them date to the Vietnam era. Of course, the upper was brand new and the guts of the lower were replaced (match trigger, etc.).

More recently my issue M203 for a while was Vietnam vintage, made by AAI as part of the initial 10500 purchased by the military. My specific weapon, S/N 5015, was made in 1970. Still worked fine.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

The RAF is a shambles right now, savaged by cuts and left wit outdated aircraft on one hand and useless aircraft on the other.

I have no real idea about the Typhoon (I would like to know, however, why you said it is such a failure? Despite the fact it is quite expensive)
but what you say about the RAF is in IMVMO (VM standing for very modest) true for every airforce (including USAF). Most of the aircraft flying today have been developed some 30 years ago and the only exception is that of the F22 Raptor (187 planned: must be a joke). F35 Lightning will not enter service before 3-5 years (and it is damn expensive). The PAK-FA will not enter service before 4 years. The Chengdu J-20 is planned to enter service in 7 years.

The most interesting surprise came from China with the Chengdu J20. I recall an exchange we had some years ago where most of us advocated that China wouldn't be able to develop such an aircraft before 2020 (they had one flying last year). For my part I thought it would come earlier than 2020 but not that early.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

I have no real idea about the Typhoon (I would like to know, however, why you said it is such a failure? Despite the fact it is quite expensive)

First it was made by commitee, the Tornado program was organised, streamlined and each nation had clear deadlines for submitting changes and inprovements. With the Typhoon the nations involved kept submitting new ideas and changes with no structure, forcing the design to be constantly re-evaluated. The result is an aircraft with no clear function, designed to do everything well while suffering from the same problems as most JOAT (jack of all trades) aircraft. The range is too low, the payload is too small and it's too damn expensive for what it is.

[Mohoender]

From what I read I don't see any substantial differences with the various contenders (altough I just went through a quick review on wiki). Announced payload is 7500kg vs 8050kg for the Super Hornet.

The main issue remains that of cost but what would have costed the closure of the corresponding factories? We have had the same issue in France with the Rafale. It is also outdated and has needed a crash-upgrade program for the aircrafts sent to Afghanistan (in order to allow them to drop laser-guided bombs, give me a break that's too funny especially as they have since been replaced by Mirage F1CR). Then, in the case of France we are not even party in the development of any generation 5 aircraft and we are not developping one of our own. At least, the RAF should receive F-35 Lightning II withing 5-7 years. Nevertheless, I tend to agree with an Australian report I founded some times ago and which stated that relying primarily on furtivity is a mistake (That same report also stated that the F22 or the PAK-FA were much better than the F35, we'll see).

Concerning Air Force strength, the French Air Force still flies 306 combat aircraft (+69 for the navy) but that number is expected to be reduced to 120 (+60 for the navy) quite soon (Khadaffi is definitely the unlucky guy of the year). As far as I know, all major air forces have followed the same path. As long as we have the ability to fight on foreign soils with the full support of technology, it's fine. If someone ever manage to deprive our defences of that full technological backup, it's going to become fun.

What you describe for the Typhoon as plagued (IMO) all post cold-war aircrafts and, provided military planners are right it their assumption of future conflicts, it shouldn't represent much of a problem. Of course, we all know that military planners are always wrong (as demonstrated by the invasion of Iraq in 2003). However, ultimate success doesn't depend much on military planners but on the ability to adapt quickly and to mass produce military goods faster than your ennemy (as demonstrated by that same invasion of Iraq or by US and USSR in ww2).