NATO adopts the M16 as its standard rifle

[uk 75]

With descendants of the M16 starting to be adopted by key NATO armies I thought it would be interesting to see if this could or ought to have been done earlier.

In the 80s France, Germany and the UK replaced their 1950s vintage semi automatic rifles with more modern weapons. France went first and produced arguably the best. The UK skimped as usual and turned a silk purse into a sow's ear. Germany nearly adopted a futuristic rifle before adopting another not so successful design.
Meanwhile although the US kept holding competitions for complicated and increasingly bizarre rifles it also developed the M16 into the M4.
A licence built M16 might have been better value for money.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I still think that the UK, France, and Germany would have ended up with bullpup weapons.

The reason the US went with the M4 carbine later on is because the M16 sucks to try to get in and out of vehicles with. The M4 is some 6" shorter, a bit more with the telescoping stock (that you never move once it's set for you).

So going from 7.62 conventional rifles to 5.56 bullpups is what should happen. Even for the US, but we got distracted by this mess in Vietnam, where the USAF base security forces replaced their M2 Carbines with this weird little varmint rifle called the AR-15. And patrolling in the Jungle all day with 6lbs of AR15 beats the hell out of carrying 10lbs of M14!!! Plus, the M14 turned out to be a piece of crap. Uncontrollable, accuracy problems, etc. So the easy way out was to have the entire US Army issued with AR15/M16s instead of giving only those troops going to Vietnam M16s.

Which got the US stuck on the M16 till the mid 1980s because we had millions of the things.

As to those weird programs, they basically came down to military higher ups not understanding that they were asking for an engineering solution to a training problem. They wanted a rifle 100% more combat effective than the M16. They got an absurd number of stupidly expensive proposals, until someone bet a general that he could increase a unit's combat effectiveness 100% or more with a better marksmanship training program. And did it.

So now the US was doubly stuck with M16/M4s.

=====
The only flaw with the FAMAS F1 is that it doesn't take STANAG magazines. Yes, that was fixed with the Navy-only FAMAS G2s, but it shouldn't have happened in the first place. Go ahead and make French-specific 25rd straight magazines (25rds is the longest you can make a 5.56 magazine and have it straight), that's fine. Just use the same locking points as the M16 magazine so that when WW3 kicks off you can use preloaded American magazines!
=====
The flaw with the SA80 was being too cheap to buy the AR-18 license, and instead trying to have people who have never designed a firearm before in their life try to reverse-engineer it before having people who will be laid off at the end of production make the thing. We all know how well that went, and it really was that simple a reason.
=====
Germany held out till they could get a caseless bullpup rifle, and even had 1000-1500 produced and issued, but then the Wall came down and they could either afford to reunify or afford the G11. Not entirely a joke.
=====


The reason militaries are going to the AR today is because of all the accessories available. Which came about as a result of the GWOT.


Me? I want one of those Croatian VHS-2 bullpups. They're sold in the US as Springfield Hellions.

 

[uk 75]

Thank you for sharing your detailed knowledge. This is the best part of these What-if threads.

 

[zen]

Is there an actual question in this and can we cut to it?

A licence built M16 might have been better value for money.

Is this the premise?
When?

 

[riggerrob]

…. The reason the US went with the M4 carbine later on is because the M16 sucks to try to get in and out of vehicles with. The M4 is some 6" shorter, a bit more with the telescoping stock (that you never move once it's set for you). …

The primary function of that adjustable butt-stock is to adapt it to soldiers with long arms versus short arms. It also helps adjust for different thicknesses of body armour.

Reducing length for transport is really only relevant for paratroopers. Even paratroopers will adjust butt-stock length shortly after landing and leave it there for the remainder of the battle.
The last thing mounted infantry want to do is step out of an APC - into a fire fight - and start adjusting their butt-stocks.

No body mentioned the Austrian AUG bull-pup rifle chambered for 5.56mm. Granted, Austria was not a member of NATO, but we have heard few complaints about reliability of AUG. Australian soldiers seem to be happy with their AUGs.
Has anyone made a hull-pup rifle with adjustable pull-length (distance between trigger and butt-plate)? Perhaps this adjustment should done by the regimental armourer.

 

[Kiltonge]

Remarkably the British Army adopted the AR-15 on a limited basis just five years after the L1A1 SLR. Very early slab-sided Colt 602s were introduced from 1962, even whilst Project AGILE was underway in Vietnam, followed by fence-sides. They were issued for patrolling in Borneo and later in rural areas of Northern Ireland and specialist RM use.

Why didn't they usurp the SLR? Probably because of the momentum of the SLR roll-out, and the unfortunate NATO endorsement of 7.62x51.

 

[uk 75]

Is there an actual question in this and can we cut to it?

Is this the premise?
When?

I mentioned the 80s and the M16 but it could have been another option or earlier or later.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The primary function of that adjustable butt-stock is to adapt it to soldiers with long arms versus short arms. It also helps adjust for different thicknesses of body armour.

Reducing length for transport is really only relevant for paratroopers. Even paratroopers will adjust butt-stock length shortly after landing and leave it there for the remainder of the battle.
The last thing mounted infantry want to do is step out of an APC - into a fire fight - and start adjusting their butt-stocks.

No body mentioned the Austrian AUG bull-pup rifle chambered for 5.56mm. Granted, Austria was not a member of NATO, but we have heard few complaints about reliability of AUG. Australian soldiers seem to be happy with their AUGs.
Has anyone made a hull-pup rifle with adjustable pull-length (distance between trigger and butt-plate)? Perhaps this adjustment should done by the regimental armourer.

That Croatian VHS-2 has about a 2" adjustment in length of pull. I think the AUG proper can adjust LOP via spacers.

 

[Apophenia]

I mentioned the 80s and the M16 but it could have been another option or earlier or later.

Within that 1980s timeframe, you could also include AR-15 developments like Canada's Diemaco C7/C8 series ... which does serve in other NATO militaries and para-militaries. Eg:

Canada = Diemaco C7/C7A1; C7CT (unofficial designation); C8/C8A1; C8CQB (PDW trials); C8SFW (JTF-2); C10 (.22); Colt Canada C7A2; C8FTHB/C8FTHBA3; C8A2/C8A3 (Note: C20 MRS is an ArmaLite product - AR-10T)

Denmark = 1995 M/95 (C7A1); 1996 M/96 (C8A1); 2004 M/04 (LSW); 2010 M/10(C8IUR)

Iceland = Íslenska Friðargæslan; C8 (no local designation)

Netherlands = 1994 C7(A1), C8(A1), and LOAW; now upgraded to C7NLD, C8NLD, and LOAWNLD

Romania = DSPI protection squads; C7 (no local designation)

UK = 2000 SFIW L119A1 (C8SFW carbine) and L119A1 CQB (C8 CQB)
-- 2014 upgrade L119A2 (carbine) & and L119A2 CQB
-- Diemaco C7 and C7A1 also used as interim SFIW (1995-2005?; undesignated)

 

[BlackBat242]

If the M16 became the NATO standard in the 1960s, I'd expect the Germans to introduce much earlier the short-stroke gas piston/operating rod system that appeared in 2004 in the HK416.

After all, it was the same base design as that of the G36, which derived from that of the G3 of 1950s origin.

 

[Scott Kenny]

If the M16 became the NATO standard in the 1960s, I'd expect the Germans to introduce much earlier the short-stroke gas piston/operating rod system that appeared in 2004 in the HK416.

After all, it was the same base design as that of the G36, which derived from that of the G3 of 1950s origin.

?

Short-stroke gas piston is the AR-18 operating system. G3 is roller delayed blowback.

 

[zen]

The flaw with the SA80 was being too cheap to buy the AR-18 license,

False!
Sterling had the license. But Government favoured Enfield.
There's an argument for AR-18 as there is for just going to Sterling and asking for a Bulpup version.

Strictly the failure here is not developing the Korsac FG42 based Bulpup for the new rifle in the late 40's, or getting roller delayed system on the EM-1.
Frankly either option is fine, but a pressed metal roller delayed Bulpup rifle for 1950 would solve a lot.

 

[Scott Kenny]

False!
Sterling had the license. But Government favoured Enfield.
There's an argument for AR-18 as there is for just going to Sterling and asking for a Bulpup version.

Strictly the failure here is not developing the Korsac FG42 based Bulpup for the new rifle in the late 40's, or getting roller delayed system on the EM-1.
Frankly either option is fine, but a pressed metal roller delayed Bulpup rifle for 1950 would solve a lot.

The government chosen option did not spend the money for the AR-18 license, despite copying it.

Then the government had the design done by engineers that had NEVER designed a firearm before. Not their fault, the engineers didn't know what they didn't know.

And then the government had the very rough design assembled in a factory that was publicly known to be closing as soon as the SA80 contract was done, so there was no desire in the workers to make a decent product.

 

[zen]

The government chosen option did not spend the money for the AR-18 license, despite copying it.

Then the government had the design done by engineers that had NEVER designed a firearm before. Not their fault, the engineers didn't know what they didn't know.

And then the government had the very rough design assembled in a factory that was publicly known to be closing as soon as the SA80 contract was done, so there was no desire in the workers to make a decent product.

Pretty much the shorthand version there.
Though I vaguely reccal at the start...IW60 maybe....?
did involve people with experience. But they retired.

 

[tomo pauk]

Which got the US stuck on the M16 till the mid 1980s because we had millions of the things.

As to those weird programs, they basically came down to military higher ups not understanding that they were asking for an engineering solution to a training problem. They wanted a rifle 100% more combat effective than the M16. They got an absurd number of stupidly expensive proposals, until someone bet a general that he could increase a unit's combat effectiveness 100% or more with a better marksmanship training program. And did it.

So now the US was doubly stuck with M16/M4s.

Being stuck with the M16 meant being in a good company. Even in the 1970s.