Snipers are going to be depressed. The really hardcore ones would load the M2 with a single round and could take out a target at distances over a mile.

.50 gun, one of those good designs that survived generation after generation and became truly international, it could be found everywhere, such as the German MG42 and the Swedish Bofors 40 mm.

Superb mounted on vehicles, where its weight is not a drawback.

I had the honor of being killed by this weapon (in a MILES-laser exercise at Fort Carson). It also killed the fireteam I was supposed to be leading, my squad leader, my platoon leader, and my platoon, bam bam bam bam. Above the din of everything else you could hear every individual round firing from that gun, a leisurely you're-all-dead-so-what's-the-big-hurry kind of sound.

Re: #3 - by "this weapon" refer to the old M2, not this new-fangulated one.

Yes, but Mark, there are now .50 cal. rifles specifically designed for long range sniping.

I hope they field test this new thing before putting it in the hands of those whose lives depend on its operating properly.

We don't need another M16 fiasco.

The suggestion that this weapons system could replace the M249 or the M60 seems a bit of a stretch to me.

The XM312 will have a very similar rate of fire to the M2, and its improved point speed and targeting system should make the kind of thing Mark describes easier, not harder.

Meanwhile, avedis is correct about .50 cal (12.7mm) sniper rifles. I've seen video of people hit by them - some of them simply exploded. There's also a 25mm sniper rifle out - the Barrett XM109.

The M249 SAW barely deserves to be called a machine gun. It's a jumped-up M-16/M4, firing the same insufficiently lethal ammo. A replacement would be a good thing, but you don't replace a 5.56mm squad weapon with a .50 cal.

M60s aren't used so much these days by US forces, the 7.62mm MMGs are often M240s. The 240 is nifty because you can mount it on a vehicle or helicopter, but with a quick conversion you can take it off and carry it with you as an infantry weapon. The XM307/312 will have some convertability, too, and may serve as a very able upgrade of certain vehicles and helicopters.

As for the M-16 fiasco, the original weapon was reliable as hell and outstandingly lethal. It's both sobering and educational to look up what happened to make it a jam-prone weapon of sub-par lethality, and whose fault that was.

Reminds me of one of my fav. JE lyrics (probably wrong):
bought a Desert Eagle
That's a Fifty Caliber
made by Bad-Ass Hebrews

I guess the .45 is having a renaissance as well and is heavily requested in Iraq. All about the stopping power I guess.

And Joe, what made the M16 go from good to bad? I ask because I have only ever heard it was always bad (except for weight, etc).

You might be able to replace a weapon designed by John M. Browning.

But you will never equal it.

Anybody heard any news on the Metal Storm technology?

"The M249 SAW barely deserves to be called a machine gun. It's a jumped-up M-16/M4, firing the same insufficiently lethal ammo. A replacement would be a good thing, but you don't replace a 5.56mm squad weapon with a .50 cal."

I disagree strongly. The SAW has some weak points. The plastic hardware tends to get loose and break and the rotary gas regulator can cause problems, but, overall, good weapon.

The 5.56mm round is not weak or ineffective. It actually penetrates armor very well. Also, at normal combat range - 300 meters and less - it is very lethal.

It think that the rep for poor lethality is due to 1) people who don't know from experience who just can't believe that a round of that caliber can be effective 2) people with experience who witnessed a shot person fail to go down because a) the shooter missed completely b) the shooter only superficially hit the target c) the shooter believes (or wants to believe) that when people get shot - especially bad guys - it's just like a hollywood action where the person hit goes flying through the air from the impact of the round.

In reality, no round short of the .50 cal will send people flying, or blow them in half, or whatever macabre manner of destruction suits your fancy.

A person shot in the head by a 5.56mm within normal combat range will have his brains all over the ground.

A person shot in the center of mass will be dead. Instantly? Usually. There are always those who will defy your will to kill them. They will keep coming on until totally blown away by subsequent hits. That is as true of the 5.56mm round as it is of the 7.62mm round.

Drugs used by third worlders also play a role in their ability to absorb lead and keep on going (for a very short while).

If you think it's only 5.56mm rounds that have occassional failures to instantly drop a man, then read the history of USMC Medal of Honor and Navy Cross recipients.

Some of those Marines took a lot of hits by .30 cal/7.62mm rounds and kept moving forward with focus to achieve their objective, save buddies, nock out positions, etc.

The citicism of the 5.56mm is mostly for the hot stove league.

Finally, the M16A1 was a fine weapon.

I guess when the 16 was first issued in VN the chamber and barrel were not chromed. I think there was a problem with chamber tolerances and powder to use in the ammo to complicate matters further. Also, no cleaning kits issued. StupidX10.

The improved model was the M16A1. This was in service for the later part of VN. It will jam, too. Mostly, I found the jams due to dolts who felt compelled to break down and re-assemble magazines with some components in backwards. Another prevalent problem is magize lips being deformed.

An M16 with good magizens and clean is a fine functioning rifle.

Then came the M16A2. A little heavier a with the round hand gaurds. I did not like the new sights. The front post is too thick and square. The rear aperture zeroed to 300 meters is stupid. Who is seriously going to need or use that dial up to adjust zero to longer range? no one; except on the KD range.

On the A1 close range there was a two way flip up aperature; close range zeroed at 250 yards and long range zeroed at 375 yards. No dial up for longer range, but who needs it? That's what arty is for.

The A1 was semi auto/full auto (select fire). The A2 goes semi/3 round burst. That burst is caused by this gear like ratchet sear. If you only get off two rounds instead of three, then your next trigger pull is real tough and you'll miss for sure. Anyhow, I just like full auto when I need it, but that's just me.

Still, the A2 is not too bad.

The M4 is the short version you see a lot of these days. I suppose it is good for close quarters, but that short barrel causes accuracy to go to hell past a hundred meters or so because the sight radius is too short. Also you lose some velocity, which the 5.56mm sort of depends on to make up for light weight.

The M16/M4 is the choice for all special forces that have access to it. Special forces around the world, who can select about any personal weapon they desire, settle on the M16/M4. That should be endorsement enough and rebuttle enough to those who disparage the weapon's virtues.

My friends in Iraq swear by the M4 because you can swing it around in a Humvee without knocking your driver unconscious. They find the thought of engaging at 300 yards pretty funny, because A. it will never be within your ROE and B. the insurgents would never show themselves in that clear a field of fire. Most engagements are with 50 yards and last less than a minute, I'm told.

Um, one inch Barrett RIFLE?? OK, I suppose it's just another upper for the standard Barrett, but it kind of feels like starting around 20mm the word CANNON might kick in. That might be fun to shoot once, so long as you didn't have to pay the bills for the ammo - I can only imagine.

No, none of those things were the key problem with the M-16 that caused the jams.

I'm thinking through the non-US Special Forces I know... not a lot of heavy M-16 users come to mind. SOCOM itself has picked up the FN SCAR system. I'm sure some do use it, but "THE choice for all special forces that have access to it" is something of an overstatement.

Guns are, in the end, a personal preference. Some are obvious dogs, but even then you'll probably find a few, say, SA80 fans out there (I'm told target shooters like it).

The M-16/M4 has good points and weak points, is a good weapon overall and most would prefer it to a Kalashnikov (or an SA80, for that matter). But it is high maintenance and can be improved upon in several areas.

At the carbine size, nothing you can really do about the short barrel pointability vs. longer range accuracy issue. That's just inherent, though you can go bullpup to ease it somewhat and designs like the XM-8 offer interchangeable barrels if you know you're headed into a situation where the shorter barrel would be unsuitable. At the scale of the XM312 HMG, however (the original subject of this post), it IS possible to create much faster "point and shoot" times without creating that accuracy tradeoff; indeed, based on the charts I put up in the DID article, they have made large strides on that front as well.

So even the M2 can be improved upon. The XM309/312 has a lot of plusses. Now its key hurdles in the field will be durability/ reliability in all conditions, and the performance of the M309's ammo (but at least there's an easy Plan B if that bit goes sideways).

If it performs even mostly up to its expected standard, I think they have a big winner here (even if it has to revert to M312 .50 cal). I'm certainly hoping that's the case. JDAMs and Viper Strikes are wonderful, but in a lot of clashes the decisive factor is direct firepower on the ground. The M2 gives US forces a big edge. Increasing that edge is good.

What do you all think about the H-K -- you know, the weapon wielded by the Federal Marshals who busted down the door of Elian Gonzales' aunt in Miami as seen on the cover of Time?

I've also seen them for real -- in the Frankfurt airport, there would be patrols of two guys, one guy with a dog and the other guy with an H-K. This was all pre-9-11, so it was kind of disconcerting to see airport security carrying assault rifles, but Germany had had problems with terror attacks. Oh, one didn't talk to these teams let alone pay much notice of them -- one figured they were all business.

I heard the H-K is unique in that you can shoot straight in full automatic -- most other assault rifle/submachine gun weapons have a "recoil arc" where you end up spraying bullets.

What would be the reason for not making a 'dumb' ammunition with the same dimensions of the 'smart' 309?

That is: you're designing a major new ammunition size anyway, regardless of whether a specific mission calls for extensive suppression fire or trick ammo. But the trick ammo is $20 a pop, and a 50 caliber bullet is (apparently) less than a buck. That implies that a dumb bullet at the appropriate dimensions for the 'smart' barrel shouldn't be more than $2-3 bucks in quantity (just because it is rarer, and not even that if you convert completely.)

I'm thinking through the non-US Special Forces I know... not a lot of heavy M-16 users come to mind. SOCOM itself has picked up the FN SCAR system. I'm sure some do use it, but "THE choice for all special forces that have access to it" is something of an overstatement.

Joe, last I heard, the British and Australian SAS use M-16's in preference to their service's bullpup rifles.

That seems to be the Special Forces seal of approval as I see.

The new American Special Forces SCAR rifle requirement is driven less by dissatisfaction with the M-16's performance than wanting the ability to use non-US ammunition scavenged from the battlefield and to switch up to 7.62mm for sniper work with a barrel change.

Nothing short of a new rifle will give the Special Operations that ability.

Al, dumb 25mm ammunition does exist. It's used in the sniper rifle noted above, in LAV turret chain guns, on Harrier jets, and in other places too. So no problem finding and using it.

The programmable airburst rounds have some major combat plusses, though. Imagine that you want to clear a room. You can shoot it up with standard 25mm ammo that will punch through the walls, and figure that enough bullets will do the trick. Or you can fire 1-2 airbursting rounds through a window, whereupon they go boom and the fragmentation incapacitates everyone inside. That's the idea, anyway, and the capability that lets it bridge the functions of both "Ma Deuce" and 40mm grenade machine guns.

And if not... then there's always standard 25mm ammo, or a swap-out of 5 parts and you have a lighter, faster, more accurate Ma Deuce .50 cal instead.

For Metal Storm news and explanations re: the "stacked projectile" technology, their web site is a good place. They've solidified some alliances and picked up a SBIR R&D contract lately.

RE: the M-16 fiasco in Vietnam.... this guy was there, and he has the story. Keep reading all the way through.

It jibes with the other accounts I've read from other sources, and adds a lot of useful first person info.

Funny, your link states exactly what I said.

There was a problem with chamber tolerances and the original model did not have chromed chamber or barrel.

Once those problems were fixed - and once the ammo was loaded with cleaner burning powder- the rifle worked well.

Also, some units were not issued cleaning kits. That is what I heard. I was not in VN as I was a kid back then. However, I heard this from several NCOs that were there.

There is some kind of epidemic on this site where people post rebuttles that actually confirm the validity of what is supposed to be rebutted.

Sorry, avedis, missed the powder reference in your earlier comment. Yes, you had said that.

The HKs at Frankfurt airport are 9mm MP9s or 5 I believe. It's really a heavy and fancy handgun. Better would be a Glock 19 handgun with a full auto selector.

Best are the short barreled G36 in 223.

I love the M16, my only gripe is the way the charging handle works. The way the shell can get stuck between the handle chamber catch and the bold is absolutely horrendous.

Imo a quick workaround would be to remove the loading handle and solder the bolt to a cable sticking out and load it by pulling this cable. If not the way the old AR10 loading trigger is neat imo.

The M4 too short barrelled thus slow bullet? The 223 too little?

Look, even if it were true, the 223 calliber is so versatile, the only thing we need to do is improve the bullet. Use a semihollow depleted uranium bullet with more powerful powder charge, make the barrel a bit thicker and add a sort of flash suppressing recoil compensator, and you got yourself a dream gun right there. The bullet breaks at the hollow part making it poison, yet is also armor piercing itself with a massive uranium penetrator. Powerful charge compensates or adds speed to the heavier bullet. M4 will never jam with such forceful bang. Compensator allows the soldier not to suffer bad recoil.

Voila

For those who are saying the XM312 matches the rate of fire of the "Ma Deuce"...it doesn't. Its rate of fire is in fact a quite unimpressive 260 rounds per minute. That comes out to 4 rounds per second, or about what one of those Barrett semi-automatic sniper rifles could achieve if you modified it for belt feed. It's barely even a machine gun, more like a large and over-complicated .50 rifle.

Well it is still a machine gun and the 260 round per minute is still fast enough for muiltiple infantry and lightly armored vehicles. But it is not fast enough for anti-aircraft missions, the old M2 has the same problem. It is 9X more accurate with an 8X rounds on target improvement over the M2. The time it takes to point, aim and fire is also cut in half, another plus for the M312 and M307. Though they were saying that the ACSW could replace the M249 and the M240 is a huge streatch more me or anyone els. The range for 2000m for engadging targets in the same as the M2 and more than the MK-19's 1600m. But the M2 and the MK-19 are good weapons and if their not broken than don't replace them as that is the case.