Ways to improve the Standard U.S. firearm

Current state of Affairs

In August 2010 the Individual Carbine Competition was formed to help provide Infantry with a newer, more modern weapon, and was cancelled March 19 2013, due to budget concerns, of which were about 1.8 billion dollars. [1][2] While this is silly for many reasons, the general basis will be discussed below.

General Background
The M16 was officially adopted in 1969, although it saw use in the Vietnam war as early as 1963.  The firearm has been the primary weapon of the U.S. for almost 43 years as of 2013, and has officially been in service for at least 50 years. Comparatively, M1903 Springfield was in service for 34 years, from 1903-1937, the M1 Garand was in service for 23 years, from 1936 to 1959, and the M14 for 11 years, from 1959 to 1970. As technologically progressed, it was generally assumed that firearms would need to be replaced progressively faster, as the rate of technological advancement tends to increase exponentially, consequentially faster and faster rate of development to require frequent replacements over the years. Despite this, the M16 has been the primary U.S. firearm, technically, for 43 years, and was widely used in Vietnam, before it's adoption in 1969 (the Vietnam war lasted from 1955-1975). Thus the weapon has been in service for an incredibly long time, twice as long as the m1 garand and almost 5 times as long as the M14, despite the fact technologically continues to rapidly progress.

At it's conception, the weapon was plagued with problems. The U.S. military initially refused to adopt any rounds weaker than the .30-06 or 7.62mm x 51mm NATO round, such as the .280 british round, prompting NATO to require all allied countries to use a similiar, more powerful round. Despite this initial decision, intermediate cartridges have achieved substantial success, as they have become the norm in NATO countries (the 5.56mm cartridge, in particular). The AR-10, also designed by Eugine stoner, was more accurate, lighter weight, had less recoil than the previous M1 garand or soon to be adopted M14, and was generally as reliable as the M14. Despite this, the weapon was not chosen by the U.S. military. More or less, a more conventional weapon, similiar to the M1 garand, was desired, and so ultimately the M14 was adopted. Rather than utilize plastics or fiberglass, or other materials available in other weapons, and utilized a traditional wooden frame, was traditionally layed out (instead of bullpup). It sported a number of improvements, utilizing a 20 round detachable box magazine instead of an 8 round en bloc magazine, and being fed from the bottom instead of the top, allowing for easier feeding and an enlarged magazine. The weapon was capable of firing in full auto, similiar to the Browning Automatic Rifle (a light machine gun), but was considerably lighter and shorter, and was deployed to nearly all infantry units.

However, many problems emerged; the M14, while much lighter than a BAR, and more similiar to the M1 garand, was considered to have too much recoil to function adequately. Even with it's weaker (3500 joules compared to about 4000), lighter, and smaller round (3.35 inches compared to 2.75 inches), the weapon still produced substantial, and sometimes uncontrollable fully automatic fire. The fear was so great that M14's sent to Vietnam had their fully automatic firing selectors welded closed, to prevent the weapon from firing fully automatic. (A Report in X said that the side that fired the most bullets) As a result, the U.S. was ready and willing to replace their standard firearm with a more modern one, citing issues with weight, size, and recoil as significant concerns.

The obvious choice would have been the previous candidates, the EM-2 or AR-10. The EM-2 was a bull-pup weapon, without a long stock, that was able to shorten the over-all length the weapon, when compared to the M14 or M1 garand, by around 10 inches. The weapon was only 35 inches long and about 7.8 pounds with a 24.5 inch barrel, and could have been 30.5 inches with a 20 inch barrel (standard on the M16 today.) It fired a weaker round, that could be stored in larger magazines (from 8 rounds to 20), and generally had less recoil, although it was just as accurate and followed a similiar ballistic trajectory as the .30-06. The 7mm round was more aerodynamic, and had a higher ballistic efficiency, allowing it to have almost as much power as the .30-06 at long ranges. At close ranges, the weapon was generally considered sufficient in terms of stopping power, being 9 grams and traveling at 770 m/s, with 2680 joules, compared to the Ak-47 with 8 grams and 715 m/s, and 2000 joules, meaning it had more power than the competing enemy weapon (known for reliability and firepower), but significantly higher accuracy.

The Ar-10 on the other hand was a much larger, traditionally layed out weapon. Unloaded, the weapon had a similiar weight of about 7.5 pounds, but was over 6 inches longer, and had a 4 inch shorter barrel (comparatively, the EM-2 could have been over 10 inches shorter with a same sized barrel). This increased over-all length gave the disadvantage of being more cumbersome and harder to use in close quarters, as well as harder to aim. It did however, have substantially more firepower, utilizing a .30-06, with similiar accuracy, and had substantially less recoil than the M14 or M1 garand, meaning the weapon could fire in full auto largely without issues. The choice was largely between a slightly longer but more powerful weapon, or a shorter, but just as accurate and long ranged weapon, that had less (but generally sufficient) power. The AR-10 was longer but as a result of it's unique firing system could decrease recoil but lengthened the over-all weapon, while the EM-2 was shorter, but had to use weaker, smaller rounds to be easy to control.

In the end,


On the aspect of Cost 

The individual carbine competition is being shut down largely due to cost, which may again limit U.S. troops from getting a superior firearm. The entire competition is expected to cost 1.8 billion dollars, with acquiring new weapons to be around the same cost of procurement for M16's. Even assuming the replacement weapon was more expensive, the issue is of cost is largely insignificant for many reasons. The U.S. military does not spend that much money on firearms, compared to their total expenditures, despite the fact that all service men have a need for a personal defense weapon, which could mean life or death in many situations; a more reliable, and consequently more durable weapon, may last longer, therefore decreasing over all costs, as well.

The over-all cost of firearms are not very high, relatively speaking. At a thousand dollars each, a million U.S. firearms would be about 1 billion dollars; 10 million would be 10 billion, and so forth. An extra barrel and accessories can add about 600 dollars, so 6 billion more dollars on top of that 10 billion, for 10 million firearms. There are, presumably, only roughly 8 million M16 type firearms worlwide. Never the less, assuming the U.S. bought 10 million, this would cost roughly 16 billion dollars. Over the 50 year life of the weapon, this equates to roughly 320 million dollars per year, or over the official 43 year life span 380 million, roughly half a B-2 bomber. Although the firearms' price have increased with inflation, at today's cost this would be about 1/2200th of the military's annual budget, or 1/43rd the annual budget in a single down payment (1/430th over a 10 year time frame).

Comparatively the SR-25 is around 4000 dollars per unit. It is extremely accurate, with out of the box accuracy being around .5-1 MOA, or around that of a standard M40 sniper rifle. Despite this, it is semi-automatic, of instead of manually operated, and has a 20 round magazine, with around the same recoil as an M16 despite firing a substantially more powerful round. It is also around the same weight and has similiar ergonomics, lasting about as long as the weapon and it's barrel, without the need for a replacement barrel. Being more expensive, around 2.6 times more, this would only be about 40 billion dollars for 10 million, or 4 billion per year over 10 years, out of a 700 billion dollar budget,  easily able to replace the average soldier's firearm. For every individual person, medics, officers, even your average person who might need to pick up a weapon and defend themselves, for just 4 billion a year you could arm each of the 3 million service members with over 3 sniper grade semi-automatic rifles. While it might not necessarily be the best firearm for our soldiers, even one of the best sniper rifles in our arsenal would be fairly inexpensive, in terms of over-all cost. Therefore the weapon could be 10 times more expensive, at around 15,000 dollars per year, and probably be insignificant in terms of over-all cost to the military, in regards to what it would it provide for every service member.

Even assuming cost is a factor, generally higher quality, and more reliable weapons, such as the FN SCAR, HK416, or XM8 tend to be more


Ways to improve the Standard U.S. firearm