>>30479773
For what purpose?

>>30479773

Marines never stopped.

I, US Army, used a M16 during basic training. Of course we used M4s the rest of my time but when I got out I made my AR based off of the M16, rifle-ed length, as I'm all for it.

>14.5 inch barrels adopted in 1994
>percentage of the human population that lives in urban areas has gone even higher since then.

Yeah.

Nah.

>>30479773
I think so. Like the A5 PIP

>>30480741

Bump

We don't need that much barrel for today's urban engagements.

>>30480790

So....make entire military specialized for close quarters urban combat only to meet an enemy that engages them in the countryside, clearly, at that point, outgunned even if it was M16 vs M4s.

"Overspecialize, and you breed in weakness."

>>30480817
And then use artillery and air support to exterminate that enemy? The military has next to no need for long range infantry engagements.

>>30480817
Wrong way around faggot.

20" is overspecialized "rifleman" wank.
14.5" is an ordinary rifle for ordinary soldiers.

If you want to complain about weapons specialized for urban areas, you'd have to complain about 10" suppressed carbines.

If we stay with the 5.56 round, yes.

If we end up transitioning to another caliber that is more efficient out of shorter barrel, no.

>>30480817

> meet an enemy that engages them in the countryside

Every Apache gunner creams their pants at the thought of engaging an enemy in the countryside.

20" barrels aren't necessary. We just need a 77gr OTM round adopted as the standard cartridge and not as a specialty round.

>>30480879
Those ISIS Apache gunners will love when we try and fight them at distance!

;^)

>>30479773
Yes. The M4 was an answer to a problem that didn't exist, except that bureaucrats needed new ways to justify the defense budget. Colt saw the writing on the wall and pushed the M4 so they would recoup some business after the AWB.

The decrease in performance has been well documented by this point, and the problems with 20" barrels can be mitigated. A4 too heavy? Don't use a full-length rail and stop making barrels with the retarded government profile. But no, now we have to shill for our buddies just to develop an adequate round while denying there are any problems with the 14.5" platform.

All my .223 uppers are 20". 20" best inch. Longer sight radius for accuracy. Longer barrel for increased chance of fragmentation with m193. And it has aesthetic. Truly the best of barrel lengths, discounting sexy 30" wwi era barrels

>>30479773
They could switch to the longest version of the MDR once it exists.
>bullpup for CQB
>19" barrel for muh ballistics
>quick-change caliber conversions between 5.56 and 7.62 Real Fuckin' NATO for parts commonality for DMRs

>>30479773
Ideally it would be modular, and mission specific.
20" barrels should be used for Afghanistan type open, mountainous terrain to open up effective ranges and to aid fragmentation.
14.5 or less should be used for urban situations.
We should implement ubiquitous use of 77gr otm for all.

I recall reading a few years ago that 6.8 is optimized for a 16" barrel, so if true that should be the new caliber.

What if we switched to 16" or 18"?

>>30481029
>The M4 was an answer to a problem that didn't exist
I fucking hate summer

>>30479773
m16A4s are about to cease production acually.
the military said a small increase in accuracy wasn't worth it VS the M4

>>30483421
Barrel length has little to do with accuracy. That's more of a function of barrel twist rate. The 20 inch barrel is the optimal length for muzzle velocity for a 5.56 round. If you have a round that derives most of its kinetic energy from its velocity, then giving it as much muzzle velocity as possible should be a primary goal.

>>30480738

But they will

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/07/27/marine-officials-endorse-infantry-plan--ditch-m16--m4/30145257/

>>30481832
So a 4-6" extra to justify using shitty shitty ammo, a national match post or optics. How are the 70s treating you?

>>30483608
the velocity is still enough to yaw the bullet, there was determined to be a point of diminishing returns with a longer barrel. there wasn't some ork armorer hacking away at barrels to make the flash bigger

>>30479773
If we switched to the bonded version of Mk318 (or any other decent 5.56 round) then it's not necessary.
Since Big Army is determined to push the M855a1 then a rifle length gas system and buffer could help deal with the retardedly high chamber pressures.
Either way the M16a2 and a4 are both retarded as is. Add the VLTOR a5 system, a non retarded barrel profile, a light weight free float rail, and an auto trigger group and we'd have a decent rifle.

>>30479773
Yes.
>>30480708
So that M855 ammunition will generate sufficient velocity for the bullet to yaw and fragment consistently in soft tissue past powder-burn distance.