What would happen if US Army soldiers were still equipped with the M16A1?

What would happen if US Army soldiers were still equipped with the M16A1?

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Jack shit.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Wait a minute wtf I could've sworn that image had an M16A1. Did I really just shift word lines?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        no shit, I recall seeing that exact image but with an A1... the rifle in the image is an A2. what the fuck is going on?

      • 2 months ago
        John Titor

        In this world line it's always been an A2. If you really are able to remember a different world line, then maybe you're the one who can save us.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          What happened when you went back? Did the chip not work?

          • 2 months ago
            John Titor

            My machine was only designed to go backwards. I have fuel for a few more jumps in case things are too set in stone at the present

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        welcome, you wont be here as long, we're about 15 minutes away from a nuclear war on this line

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They'd use less optics. Nothing would really change.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The A1 can mount optics, so really we'd only be missing out on LAMs though I'm certain we'd come up with something to mount them

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You can still put an acog on an a1 and that's all you need

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      plus carry handle acog is best acog.
      >perfect height
      >no extra mount needed, can save a few oz
      >can still use irons through the mount hole

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I'm a gooseneck man myself.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >post picture of A2
    have I been trolled?

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They would still fuck your day up, they'd just look cooler doing it.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    i dont think a1's would like the new ammo

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Don't need it when you have a 20" barrel

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I know the 20 inch barrel would make cheaper ammo more effective.

        Is it not all STANAG compatible

        No, the A1 used a 1:12 twist rate barrel, able to stabilize 55gr M193. However with the A2 we moved to the now standard 1:7 which can stabilize most loads but works best with 60-70gr projectiles. If you loaded 62gr M855 into an A1 it would keyhole as it spins the bullet too slowly to properly stabilize it. Barrel length has nothing to do with it

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >If you loaded 62gr M855 into an A1 it would keyhole
          no it doesn't. the original M16 used a 1:14 twist; the government moved to a 1:12 twist in order to stabilize the tracer round which had a longer projectile, and even then the stabilization issue only turned up in alaska in winter. but the 55gr tracer bullet that is stabilized just fine by 1:12 is *longer* than the M855.
          tldr M855 stabilizes just fine out of 1:12. if it doesn't then you've got major crown problems.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            This.
            You don't see noticeable differences in performance till ~300+ meters.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          [...]
          [...]
          Do you morons not know what twist rate is?

          Dumbass, what hes saying is that with a 20 inch barrel 55gr is fine and you dont need 77gr cope shit.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I know the 20 inch barrel would make cheaper ammo more effective.

        Is it not all STANAG compatible

        Do you morons not know what twist rate is?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          yes, but no

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I don't have a job so I don't own rifles beyond a .22.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          LMAO dat shit be whiteboilore.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're such a stupid moron

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          yeah

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous
        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          do you not know that it isn't the twist rate that matters but the RPM of the bullet, and that while the RPM is dependent on the twist rate it is also dependent on the bullet velocity, which is in turn dependent on the barrel length?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I know the 20 inch barrel would make cheaper ammo more effective.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Is it not all STANAG compatible

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If they switched over now, soldiers would be surprised how lightweight it feels compared to their M4s. I let a buddy of mine who is in the army feel my 20" AR15 build, and that was his takeaway. That's because from the M16A2 onward, all milspec rifles were either government profile, or Socom profile. People forget pencil was OG. (To be fair, my rifle has a gunner profile, so it maybe slightly different, but the measured weight is equal to a pencil)

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Is it really hat light? It's such a big rifle

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Absolutely, but it has some drawbacks. A1 furniture is noticeably weaker feeling and apparently is more fragile than A2 furniture. Plus pencil barrels, for all the weight they save, lose accuracy fast from rapid fire compared to heavier profiles. Granted modern profiles have solved this issue but back in the day it was either not be able to hit shit after 3 mags or make the rifle a boat anchor

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >A1 furniture is noticeably weaker feeling and apparently is more fragile than A2 furniture.
          this can be solved if you're willing to add a couple of ounces making the plastic thicker.

          Is it really hat light? It's such a big rifle

          yeah they're extremely light, mostly because of the pencil barrel. my SP1 is even lighter still due to the old-style receiver - no forward assist, no case deflector, no ribs or fences, and a lighter but sproingier buffer tube. it weighs a tad over 6.5lbs. as soon as you pick it up you know why it was referred to as "made by mattel" - it feels like a toy gun.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yup, I just measured mine and it weighed in at 6.8 lbs unloaded. For comparison, M4A1s equipped with SOCOM barrels are listed at 6.95 lbs online. Pic attached for reference.

        What

        Absolutely, but it has some drawbacks. A1 furniture is noticeably weaker feeling and apparently is more fragile than A2 furniture. Plus pencil barrels, for all the weight they save, lose accuracy fast from rapid fire compared to heavier profiles. Granted modern profiles have solved this issue but back in the day it was either not be able to hit shit after 3 mags or make the rifle a boat anchor

        checks out with what I've heard of the OG A1s. However, if you hypothetically wanted to reintroduce an A1 with modern "under the hood" upgrades, you could just remake A1 style furniture from the same material A2s use. Similarly, I've heard some people say modern pencil barrels aren't as susceptible to opening from overheating since fabrication has improved a lot in the last 50 years, but that's just hearsay without a source I can't remember.

        • 2 months ago
          Resident Wumbologist

          I think the best compromise between the A1 and A2 would be
          >full auto, fuck the burst
          >intermediate weight barrel, perhaps slightly thicker towards the back than the A1 pencil but not the full retard A2 where it's thick at the front
          >A1 grip
          >A2 stock
          >A2 handguards
          >A2 twist rate, or maybe 1:9
          The rest is kind of a wash. For instance either the A1 or A2 rear sight would be fine.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >A2 stock
            Why? The original LOP was fine and the A2 was too long. IIRC it was the result of competition marksman bullshit instead of actual practicality for combat, specially with a vest

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            My man, I agree for the most part. Like that other anon said, the A2 length is a problem for shorties, while the opposite isn't a big deal for big boys, (or at least for my lanky ass.) If you mean mixing the stock up so it's A1 length but has all the other A2 features, I agree. (This existed and was called a Colt C1 stock). I think the only other hard positives I can think of are minute A2 ones: Thicker front sight post, slightly reinforced lower receiver, ejection port door, etc. An overlooked one is that the rear sight assembly can be popped off and replaced if its ears get damaged, as opposed to replacing the entire A1 upper. But I bet that could be mixed with the A1 style too.

            I do wonder why they chose 1:7. I know it's optimal for tracers they were using at the time, but aren't those loaded for low light only, and at a rate of 5 regular to 1 tracer? Doesn't seem optimal at a glance.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Your poor bayonet. Faxon I assume.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You would be correct in your assumption. It is a little rattly, but not a deal breaker. I've thought of putting tape around the barrel where the ring lies, but at the same time I think that's pointless/kinda gay to worry about.

            Do you know if the other barrel lengths are funky like this, or is it only the 20" ones? I may pick up a 16" middy if the 14.5 pencil I ordered from a different vendor in FEBRUARY just cancels on me.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        4u

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You should see what happens when you give an M249 gunner an M63.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why What happen

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            stoner 63 is like half the weight of the saw

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The M249 weighs 17 lbs empty and the Stoner 63, despite firing the same cartridge and predating the m249 by a little over 10 years weighs 11.68 lbs in it's belt fed LMG/MMG configuration.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I PCSed from a unit with M4A1s to one that somehow still had M16s. Thing felt ridiculous.

  9. 2 months ago
    Resident Wumbologist

    The length would be inconvenient for use in/out of military vehicles, mounting optics would be less convenient (but not too bad), the 1:12 twist rate wouldn't stabilize M855/SS109 very well so we would be using predominantly M193 making it hard to share ammunition with NATO allies.

    Other than that no big loss at all. It was still an effective and practical rifles, with most of the changes going to the A2 pattern being minor enhancements or even a step backwards (worst burst fire ever, retarded barrel profile, mutant nub on the grip nobody asked for).

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The 1:12 barrel wouldn’t like the M855 or M855A1, they’d have to give them A4 handguards to use the PEQ and they’d have to change the mounts for the M68 CCO and TA31(not as hard)

    Basically it’s a bad idea unless you rebarreled all of them and made them a flat top and then it wouldn’t be an A1 anymore

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I can confirm a1 (mine is a mix mash but whatever) is best AR. Crazy quiet with the right gas system and a silencer. 16oz can does make it a bit front heavy, but still slick and handy.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      What is your gas system? I'm still trying to find the perfect one for mine, I feed her Speer gold dots, Federal highgrains and m193 if that matters.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I use a .083 EZtune tube.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The rifle isn't really that important as long as it's something halfway decent. Of course not all rifles are built equal but artillery and air power and naval shit are like 90% of warfighting.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Probably perform better, due to lack of over confidence in the personal weapon system, soldiers would then maximise correct tactics and calling in inorganic fires more. Which would give a better overall performance.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Well, it is close to a C7, so it'll work.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Basically nothing. At a certain point rails and better optics mounting would always exist. The A1 would still become some form of A2 in terms of designation (likely similar in profile to the A4 with a thinner profile barrel still). If this is a magical timeline where the A1 persists in its form forever, all you'd see is tall carry handle optics, more use of red dots or more compact lower power scopes, and probably some awful cobbled solution for LAM holding zero (likely FSP mount like on Canadian guns).

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They can engage targets maybe 50m further if they have good aim

    But at the cost of fitting worse through doorways and being more awkward to handle inside of transports
    ABCTs would get the short end of the stick as M2s are already crowded as is, especially once they try to fit more than a fire team in one
    But effect on the operational level would be negligible

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They could be equipped with StG 44s and it would make little difference. Infantry firearms haven't advanced much, the advantage of having a select-fire assault rifle made today over one made 70 years ago(as long as it's in good condition) is marginal.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      How and why?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The leap from muskets to breech loading is big.
        The leap from breech loading to bolt action with an internal magazine is big.
        The leap from bolt action with an internal magazine to semi auto is big.
        The leap from semi auto to a select fire assault rifle is big.
        The leap from a 30 round select fire assault rifle to one that isn't 70 years old is not big.
        The biggest advantages the M16A1 would have over an StG44 are being half the weight and mildly better ballistics, that's it.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Not him but US tests with the STG after WWII had some report they felt it was inferior to their firearms at the time for many reasons like reliability and more. In clean conditions and in good working order it can be quite reliable for a time but once it gets dirty, which it likely will, it gets fucked easily. That report
          >http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html
          >All things considered, the Sturmgewehr remains a bulky, unhandy weapon, comparatively heavy and without the balance and reliability of the U.S. M1 carbine. Its design appears to be dictated by production rather than by military considerations. Though far from a satisfactory weapon, it is apparent that Germany's unfavorable military situation makes necessary the mass production of this weapon, rather than of a machine carbine of a more satisfactory pattern.
          Optics over iron sights also make a big difference in accuracy and for modern tech, targeting systems can be night and day.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >gun performs poorly when not properly maintained
            Yes, the US experienced this with its own firearms as well.
            >it's bulky and heavy
            This was pointed out, it's not that big of a deal outside of close range.
            >optics
            These can also be fitted to the StG.
            The difference between old and new assault rifles is not huge. The new ones are better, but they would be changing the outcome of a few firefights, not wars or battles.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >gun performs poorly when not properly maintained
              More like it malfunctions if the battlefield isn't clean enough to eat off. It's an overengineered piece of shit only used by desperate rebels. Notice the entire open track behind the bolt handle? That's a huge ingress point for dirt and derbies to get in and jam up the rifle. In field conditions you are going to have a lot more issues then you would with a more "modern" design (modern is kind of relative as the AK-47 is only 3 years older which is nothing in terms of firearms tech). In clean conditions and in good working order it can be quite reliable for a time but since when are battlefields preemptively deep cleaned?

              The second issue with the STG-44 is that they are of war time production late in the war. This leads to two related problems base shortage of resources and there desperation to get as many into the field as possible. Due to lack of resources they made design choices that would allow them to use inferior material, but still be functional. As a result the design has some flaws that affect the long term reliability of the STG-44. The STG-44 only had an expected life span of about 5,000 rnds before they start running into issues because of the inferior materials used in their construction. For the Germans that was considered a fair trade for getting a lot of them into the field, since more conventional firearms of the time were not going to cut it. If they lasted that long they could be replaced because of the increased production.

              From a modern perspective though that is not great unless you are desperate. Over all though if that was all you had and they were in good condition, while not ideal, would still be effective combat firearms, so far as it pumps bullets into enemies, but you wouldn't choose it over other designs if you could. If you were a Syrian rebel and broke into a storage that had like 4500-5000 of them and had nothing better, you'd use them.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's a 30 round select fire assault rifle that existed at a time when nobody else had something comparable so "piece of shit" is massive hyperbole.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >when nobody else had something comparable
                Kinda does when the Stg44 is so overated it was judged unreliable and inferior to CONTEMPORARY firearms. Not some brand spanking new rifle after but 1945s weapons. It's like having a brand new jet so shit it goes slower than a car. Doesn't matter and even the Russians made the Fedorov Avtomat before and there were plans for the Thompson Light Rifle which didn't work out. The Stg44 barely gets points for actually being issued.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >judged inferior to contemporary firearms
                By who? The same military that thought they didn't need anything better than the carbine after WW2?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >gun performs poorly when not properly maintained
              What's properly maintained by Stg44 standards? Post-war studies of the Stg44 like that anon's link found that it was very prone to jamming compared to weapons within the American arsenal OF ITS DAY. Reliability trumps all for a service rifle, and that's why the AK is mechanically a Garand. Stg44's a heavy jam prone over engineered piece of shit with no compensator and a tendency to burn your hand. They were actually made with pretty cheap and poor quality steel for the receiver (and magazines), oh sure, they were intended to be disposable and have a short lifespan (about 5000 to 10000 rounds of 7.92x33mm). There's very good reasons why even those with the ability to make more didn't make more and one is simply they sucked. This isn't something inherent to WWII German guns. MG-34 and MG-42 not only were first GPMGs but also were supremely reliable and performant enough to justify their use for decades post-war and in the case of the MG-42, up until this day. Unlike the MG-34 as first in class as a GPMG, it had severe issues like weight, reliability, durability, and complexity (the trigger pack alone is a nightmarish assembly of dozens of parts compared to a stupid simple AR/AK one today, the magazines were recommended to be loaded only to 25 rounds to avoid wearing them out, it's a 10 lb gun whereas even a milled AK is just under 8, etc.) Stg44 is so overated it's not even funny. You know how the M16 was fucked over by bureaucratic stupidity in Vietnam? That's the closest situation for a modern rifle to be compared performance-wise.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    OPTICS ADAPTERS WOULD BE USED. LIGHTER RIFLE WITH AWESOME RETRO BACK UP IRONS.

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    /thread
    Do not feed the shill

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *