What would be the US main rifle today if they couldnt fix the shortcomings of the m16 and ditched it? If the m16 just turned out to be another flop, would the US just re-adopt the M14 or would we have continued to hold army trials until a new rifle came along?
>>28069799
The FAL most likely, but most of the adoption in that race was trying to get one domestically built, so who knows?
AR-18 if they went with a domestic
>>28069799
L85 probably
>>28069799
If they NEVER fixed the M16? That's hard to imagine but I can envision an alternate history where McNamara was never SoD and the Vietnam War never happened, thus allowing the M14 to coast along in peace time without being replaced.
>>28069799
It's not unlikely to think we might still be using M-14s of some variant today.
>>28069884
The M14 was on its way out before things started in 'nam
>>28069907
sounds like a good read, care to show a link?
>>28069907
I didn't mean to imply that the M14 would never have been replaced, just that it would have taken longer because of less sense of urgency.
>>28069799
Pic related would probably have been pushed forward in one of its configurations.
>>28069799
We would have kept the M16, we would just also keep M14s and rely more on airstrikes and artillery to get shit done. The M16 was a really cool looking new toy made entirely out of proprietary parts and corporate greed, do you really think that the army would get rid of something like that until they absolutely had to?
ak74 because usa would be ussa desu senpai
>>28070007
>do you really think that the army would get rid of something like that until they absolutely had to?
You have no idea how hard they tried to do just that.
>>28069930
I grew up reading gun rags from my dad from the mid '60s. It was seen as a backwards-looking design that didn't take WW2 into consideration, and as soon as it was adopted people were looking for its replacement.
It's not a bad gun at all. Just extremely outdated for the late '50s, which makes sense considering it was nearly designed entirely in the early 1930s.
>>28070007
The Army only adopted the M16 because McNamara said everybody had to use the same rifle and that rifle had to be the M16. If the Army had been allowed to keep using the M14, they would have done so. McNamara had zero tolerance for fuddism. In his mind, everybody had to use whatever he thought was best. Sometimes that attitude worked out well, sometimes it didn't. In the case of the M16, it led to the rifle being given widespread adoption before it was really ready for prime-time. But without him, the rifle may have not be adopted at all, so it's a case of a good idea with botched execution.
>>28069799
>shortcomings
m16/ar-15 rifles are the linux of guns... so long as the can keep glue shit on them for varies applications they will keep using the.
>>28069832
Most do not understand that this was the closest rifle to beating out the M16.
>>28070205
I thought that ad was from 1950 until I saw the Blackhawks. What the hell.
>>28070224
It was actually from 2005
>>28070213
The US made its own versions just for the tests. They were real close.
Probably should have won, too. Easier to make, more modular, more controllable on full auto.
>>28070035
I think the ruling on the last round of tests was not enough of a difference to justify the cost of a changeover. Makes sense when you're talking about a few million guns being swapped out, thousands of armorers retrained, and everyone having to refamiliarize themselves with their newest toy.
