HK 416

Gotta love H&K.

Unfortunately the government is so slow to change...could be a while before we actually see a full on replace of the 16.

yeah but then all the factories would have to changed to make another size round than the 5.56nato. and then we'd have to ask nato to change rounds. well i'm assuming we would.

but congress has been pushing the army into allowing independent tests done with the m4 hk416 and other rifles. so if one surpasses the other i wont be to surprised to see congressional pressure to change the weapon system.

The HK-G36 assault system should have replaced the M16A3 a long time ago... It's a superior weapon all around. There's only one reason why no H&K product will ever do that... Price.

Cost per unit is one of the biggest sticking points for superior weapons systems trying to make it onto the DoD shortlist.

The Marine Corps brought a bunch of 416's upper recievers a while back. For the DAP's of Force Recon or so scuddlebutt goes. And they had fantastic results with the system over the Block Back Colt Bolt system in Afghan and other 'harsh' conditions.

Best part of the 416 is that it has many of the same elements as current M-4s that we have in service and many parts are already in stock.

Kristofer wrote: which is why our beloved corps. should start the switch and lead the way again.

With the Unarmed Ospreys and the new overbudget Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicles I dont the Corps has enough of the chump change we get from the Pentagon and Navy for any major purchases.

I wish every Marine and Soldier would have a MRAP to ride on. Then we wouldnt have so many lost lives to road side bombing and small arms fire.

Of all the choices currently on the table... I'd think the HK416 would be the most cost-effective... for the reasons EE stated. Parts compatibility, etc. I believe they could even get away with just buying the upper halves, and keeping the current lowers in service.
Same magazines. Same stripper clips/bandoliers. Same bayonets. Same cleaning kits. Same familiarity for current troops, similar basic operation/maintenance training for newer troops, etc.
I know next to nothing of the FN SCAR system. It seems pretty good... but so did the XM-8, and that apparently had dismal test results.

Caliber change isn't gonna happen. The cost of a new service rifle is heavy enough without having to retool EVERYTHING. Tooling up Lake City to start pumping out an entirely new *standard* caliber would be a budgetary nightmare for an already strapped Pentagon. Keep in mind the potential for 'regime change' in DC, with high probability of Defense cuts like in the 90s as well. It's just too much of a burden and risk.

If anything... bullet change, but not caliber change. Mk262 is doing good work... so a change from the worthless "need to pierce a steel helmet at umpty-yards" M855 to something more along the lines of the Mk262 would probably be more effective in regards to battlefield performance vs. cost effectiveness, than anything else.
Reverting back to 7.62x51 isn't going to happen widescale. Something new like 6.8... the support just isn't there.

I always thought the G36C was the seckiest gun evar.

the Army has flat out said no to switching to the SCAR. Last I heard the Marines had not ruled it out yet. I wouldnt be surprised if the Marines switched to one of the two. The versatility of the SCAR is why I like. If they have the same bolt operation as the HK 416 i will like it even more. Granted Ive never had any problem shooting my M16, but then again, I havent shot it in a desert environment and when we shoot, we spend hours cleaning after for the next shoot.

Marines already switched to the A4. We only use the A2 for Rifle Qual. Only other people to generally get the A2 are admin types in training stateside on occasion.