The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: General

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 21, 2012, 08:14 PM   #1
rhs77430
Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2012
Location: warrensburg, mo
Posts: 16
idea for a new infantry rifle- hear me out

so i've been thinking, the us army has been looking for a new piston-driven carbine, to replace or upgrade the current m4 carbine. Popular candidates include the SCAR the XCR, the ACR, the H&K, but some very viable candidates have been overlooked. I want you to consider something out of left field.
I think this is not taken seriously enough. if kel-tec beefed up that barrel, made the receiver out of steel, got rid of the folding part, just had the receiver one piece, and put more metal parts (trigger), but kept same design, bolt, etc, added a 3 round burst capability, you've got yourself a goddamn good rifle. thoughts?
rhs77430 is offline  
Old February 21, 2012, 08:19 PM   #2
Coyote_Buster700
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 12, 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 261
So basically... you Want Kel tec to produce an hk416...

What could that hodgepodge possibly do that the m4 cant already?... NTM that when you take away the fold up capability of the Kel tek, you take away the reason to buy the su16... its a fold up carbine. To do anything else with it would be... for lack of a better word, Retarded.
Coyote_Buster700 is offline  
Old February 21, 2012, 08:28 PM   #3
davery25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 308
as far as i know there are no reliability issues with the m4, the issue is reports that its barrel is too short to make use of the 223 round and has max effective range of 50 metre. I dont know if i believe that but thats what i've read anyway.

Would the rifle above really do any better?
davery25 is offline  
Old February 21, 2012, 08:33 PM   #4
rhs77430
Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2012
Location: warrensburg, mo
Posts: 16
gotcha

see your point coyote, so make the receiver steel, but keep the foldability. is that a word? but yeah esp if made with the 16" barrel, it would have a farther effective range than a 14 1/2 inch m4 barrel. also, you could have only a select few manufactured with the m203 cuts to mount it, most would have a thick, heavy barrel.
rhs77430 is offline  
Old February 21, 2012, 08:35 PM   #5
rhs77430
Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2012
Location: warrensburg, mo
Posts: 16
and i'm not saying it would have anything the competition doesnt, i'm just saying it could compete
rhs77430 is offline  
Old February 21, 2012, 08:43 PM   #6
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,758
I wouldn't feel comfortable with arming the military with a rifle made by a company that can't keep their website malware free.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old February 21, 2012, 08:52 PM   #7
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,552
I have a better ideal.

The M16a1 worked great, it was light, it was reliable and accurate.

It's down fall was:

1: The 1:12 twist limited it to light bullets.
2: The sights were not readily adjustable for elevation without using the front sight.

Something that is "NOT" needed, is the piston.

So Go back to the M16a1, add the same weight barrel in 1:7 and the 'A2's rear sight.

Keep the weight the same as the orginal M16A1.

That, in the opinion of one who used the M16 in Combat, would be the perfect battle rifle.

A rifle with added distance, that light weight, and worked in every enviorment our military would find itself in, from the Jungle, desert, and arctic.

PS: Dump that heavy a$$ bayonet and go back to the M-7, it will do anything that needs done plus you can dig a pretty deep hole, pretty dern fast with a lot less weight.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071

Last edited by kraigwy; February 21, 2012 at 08:59 PM.
kraigwy is offline  
Old February 21, 2012, 08:58 PM   #8
Achilles11B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2010
Posts: 595
As an OIF vet, whose first deployment saw his unit carrying the 'A4s, clearing rooms with 20" muskets gets ridiculous. Riding in Humvees and BFV's with said muskets clanging around also gets ridiculous. Added range is great, but so is the ability to navigate a serpentine staircase and quickly dash out of a vehicle.

And thus, the great "American Combat Rifle Debate: Why Everyone's Choice Sucks (But Not As Much As The M4)" continues.
__________________
Good equipment will never be a substitute for good training.
Achilles11B is offline  
Old February 21, 2012, 09:05 PM   #9
rhs77430
Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2012
Location: warrensburg, mo
Posts: 16
@11b do you think an 16 inch or 18 inch barrel could effectively split the difference? and yeah haha everyone has their own ideas about what the army/marines should use. I'm not saying the kel tec is the best choice, i'm just pointing out that it is overlooked, when perhaps it COULD be a decent choice.
rhs77430 is offline  
Old February 21, 2012, 09:23 PM   #10
cookie5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 1, 2011
Posts: 202
I own the KelTech SU16 while it is more reliable than the bottom feeder AR15 types as noted from carbine classes and as an owner starting 1972 of 4 Colt ARs starting with an A1 type all the way to the A2 HBAR "I sold them during the markup of prices during the first and second Calif {assult rifle} ban. I have never been at war but if I had a choice between a Keltech or a Colt AR my choice would be with out reservation an AR. The 3 shot burst sucks IMO.The Keltec is no more than a real nice handy light carbine I would say perfect for cop type use. The AR has a 50 year track record and it can be said it works!. I am sure there are complaints and problem areas in all the worlds military rifles .

Last edited by cookie5; February 21, 2012 at 09:30 PM.
cookie5 is offline  
Old February 21, 2012, 09:38 PM   #11
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 5,588
I wish there was a big "yawn" emoticon on here as I'm tired of watching the dead horse being beat. Like already stated several times I'd like to really know how this is a much better option than the M4/M16 rifle currently in use? I've never had a problem with my M16A2 or M4 carbine, except for a few faulty magzines used past their prime.
__________________
NRA Life Member
The Truth About Guns

Last edited by taylorce1; February 22, 2012 at 10:12 AM.
taylorce1 is offline  
Old February 21, 2012, 11:27 PM   #12
RC20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 2,141
Lets see

XCR has a massive bolt
XCR is simple and not small parts to loose
XCR has superior controls to the Kel Tec and the M4
XCR can change barrel lengths to suit the mission(s)
note: Nothing says you can't have squads with a mix, and bias the majority to what is most likely, but at worst you are as good as an M4.
XCR has a piston (with all due respect, lots of maint read that oil in the Sand Box is not the best idea, yes it can work but it also can be a lot better.

So, Kel Tec has the charging handle on the wrong side. Hmmm.

Quote:
as far as i know there are no reliability issues with the m4, the issue is reports that its barrel is too short to make use of the 223 round and has max effective range of 50 metre. I dont know if i believe that but thats what i've read anyway.
Maintenance issues, not reliability if maintained, but the question is why?

Barrel is too short for anything past 300 meters not 50. .223 round is always going to have issues as its primary mission is to go through things (door, armor etc), you just have to hope you kill who you poke the holes through (keep shooting till they drop)

M4 was fine for Iraq, not so good for the longer shoots (most of the time) in Afghanistant. Ergo, changeable barrel would allow that.

Not carrying extra barrel, just a mix so you have some people with the right barrel all the time and the rest in between for going the average.
RC20 is offline  
Old February 21, 2012, 11:45 PM   #13
Achilles11B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2010
Posts: 595
I'm ending this here: SAW's for everyone.

Pros:
No more issues with three-round burst and faulty magazines.

Lack of punch found in the 5.56mm round compensated with volume.

Colt, HK, FN, et al., can race to build the very first SPR M249 barrel.

An infantry squad that consists of 9 machine guns will ensure that video game developers and movie producers will have an easier time coming up with creative content (emphasis on 'creative').

Cons:
M203 + M249 = some sort of weird, awkward, impossible-to-carry black steel abomination. (This can be mitigated by bringing back the M79).

Not enough surface area to cover the entire weapon with rails to attach the latest light/laser/tactical can-opener/Special Forces combat iPod to.

Lack of 'match-grade' replacement parts ensures M249 SPR (SMPG?) project never take off.
__________________
Good equipment will never be a substitute for good training.
Achilles11B is offline  
Old February 21, 2012, 11:51 PM   #14
dvdcrr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 5, 2010
Posts: 252
I built one of those but in 22lr.
It was very nice.
dvdcrr is offline  
Old February 22, 2012, 12:03 AM   #15
Nickel Plated
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2010
Location: Brooklyn, NYC
Posts: 549
If the military goes through the trouble and expense of adopting a new rifle, I think they should just jump straight to a bullpup design. The SCARs and ACRs really don't do all that much that the M4 can't already. A bullpup would be the only thing different enough to be worth the investment of money and re-training. it would solve the issue of "We want a long barrel to make proper use of the 223. But short so we can use it in our Humvees when doing drive-bys on terrorists."

Another benefit is being the military's standard issue rifle means that it will soon flood the civilian market. And we all know we don't get enough bullpups
Nickel Plated is offline  
Old February 22, 2012, 04:23 AM   #16
Scorch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2006
Location: Washington state
Posts: 11,534
Quote:
so i've been thinking, the us army has been looking for a new piston-driven carbine,
Actually, the US Army has already issued a statement that there is no advantage to a piston-operated rifle, so they are not looking for a piston-operated rifle unless it is attached to a major improvement in performance and suitability for the mission.
__________________
Never try to educate someone who resists knowledge at all costs.
But what do I know?
Summit Arms Services
Taylor Machine
Scorch is offline  
Old February 22, 2012, 07:10 AM   #17
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,321
"I wouldn't feel comfortable with arming the military with a rifle made by a company that can't keep their website malware free."

Because lord knows NO other firearms company has ever been subject to any sort of cyber attack.

I'm not even going to start to go into what's wrong with that concept, Jim, but it would start with a discussion about how Keltec makes guns, but they're not really into web design, and that's why they hire it out.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old February 22, 2012, 08:19 AM   #18
Crow Hunter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2012
Posts: 1,078
Quote:
XCR is simple and not small parts to loose
Unless a screw backs out.
Crow Hunter is offline  
Old February 22, 2012, 09:40 AM   #19
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,719
Quote:
I think this is not taken seriously enough. if kel-tec beefed up that barrel, made the receiver out of steel, got rid of the folding part, just had the receiver one piece, and put more metal parts (trigger), but kept same design, bolt, etc, added a 3 round burst capability, you've got yourself a goddamn good rifle. thoughts?
I think there are a lot of good reasons not to take the SU16 seriously as a general-issue military rifle. Not the least of which is that it was never designed for that role and wouldn't survive the tests given to the HK416, SCAR or M4. It was designed as a lightweight ranch rifle.

By the time Keltec could reengineer that basic design to be competitive with the rifles you named, the Improved Carbine Competition would be over and the final product would be nothing like the SU-16. And it would still be built by Keltec, a company that based on what I read in the forums still has trouble with its existing civilian firearms products being less durable or reliable than the civilian market would like.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old February 22, 2012, 10:09 AM   #20
Pert316
Member
 
Join Date: March 23, 2011
Posts: 30
What!!

Come on Really!! A Keltec anything . Why don't we replace the sidearms with Hi Points.
Pert316 is offline  
Old February 22, 2012, 10:36 AM   #21
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 5,588
RC20 refrencing the M4:
Quote:
Barrel is too short for anything past 300 meters not 50.
How is the barrel to short to be effective on targets past 300 meters? I found the biggest problem with using the M4 effectively past 300 meters is the Army's lack of training. They just don't spend enough time at the range anymore.

When I first got to Italy in 1992 as an 11B they had a 25m indoor range on the base, I spent at least one day (if not a week) a month in there putting lead down range. Plus we would qualify on a regular range at least 3-4 times a year. When I got back to Ft Bragg in 1994-96 the monthly range trips slowed down but we still qualified about once a quarter.

I've been in the Reserves since 2001 as an 88M and I've got to qualify about once every 18 months. If I didn't still have my own AR15 I doubt I'd qualify as well as I do. Still I don't qualify Expert every time anymore like I did in my AD days, just because I don't shoot like I did. Unfortunately we spend more time in a class room learning about suicide prevention and consideration of others training most of our field time gets pushed aside to complete this “mandatory” training.

IMO the Army has started to drift to far from emphasizing basic soldier skills. Getting back to the basics and spending more time teaching soldiers to shoot (move, and communicate as well) will have a great effectiveness on the M4’s capabilities than a longer barrel could ever provide. Combat units still get to train more on AD with live ammunition however these last two wars have seen a far greater number of “non-combat” troops seeing action and these units just don’t put enough emphasis on going to the range.
__________________
NRA Life Member
The Truth About Guns
taylorce1 is offline  
Old February 22, 2012, 10:43 AM   #22
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,552
Quote:
How is the barrel to short to be effective on targets past 300 meters? I found the biggest problem with using the M4 effectively past 300 meters is the Army's lack of training.
BINGO........................we have a winner.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old February 22, 2012, 12:53 PM   #23
cannonfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 497
Quote:
How is the barrel to short to be effective on targets past 300 meters? I found the biggest problem with using the M4 effectively past 300 meters is the Army's lack of training.
Agreed! I've seen someone qualify with a M4 for Marine qualifications... took that sucker to 500m. It may not be pin point accurate, but you can still hit a man sized target from that distance consistantly.
__________________
Segui il tuo corso e lascia dir le genti - Dante

Blaming guns for crime is like blaming the planes for 9/11
cannonfire is offline  
Old February 22, 2012, 01:28 PM   #24
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,512
A friend of mine went to a NG Sniper Comp in Arkanasand made a 700m shot with his M-4A1 after the SASS went tits up for some reason.

It's not the weapon, it's the traning that goes behind it.

But..........something other than 62 grn FMJ would be friggin awesome.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Big Sister: "You should be sponsored by Allen"
Me: "If you can't shoot good, at least look good walking to the firing line."
Big Sister: "Can you not afford a Pelican? Then buy an Allen gun bag."
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old February 22, 2012, 05:54 PM   #25
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,758
Quote:
"I wouldn't feel comfortable with arming the military with a rifle made by a company that can't keep their website malware free."

Because lord knows NO other firearms company has ever been subject to any sort of cyber attack.

I'm not even going to start to go into what's wrong with that concept, Jim, but it would start with a discussion about how Keltec makes guns, but they're not really into web design, and that's why they hire it out.
I guess I should have used a smilie.

It was on my mind because I was actually researching Keltec's folding 9mm carbine as a plinker and, before I realized what I had done, I clicked a link to their sight, knowing of their problem. Thought I got infected and took appropriate steps. Took hours but all is okay. As much on me as them if there was a problem.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Reply

Tags
army , carbine , m4 carbine , su-16

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13258 seconds with 7 queries