Interesting things are happening in the world of military firearms, and with Independence Day coming up, the best protection for America’s fighting men and women should be on all of our minds.

A replacement for the current SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon)? The supplier makes great firearms, but is accuracy dominant over sustained firepower in the current assessment of needs on a two-theater front? Read THIS and tell us what you think.

The FN SCAR (Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle) is a fine weapon: I for one have shot it and been impressed with it. A massive order for the 5.56mm version has been put on hold, ostensibly because the budget is limited and the need for other weapons is greater (such as 7.62mm NATO caliber SCARs). The 5.56mm SCAR reportedly outperformed the current M4 platform in sand-condition torture testing and got rave reviews from the relatively few troops who actually took it into the field.

Long-voiced complaints about the effectiveness of currently issued 5.56mm rifle ammunition in the anti-personnel function led to development of 6.5mm and 6.8mm rounds, none of which seem likely to be adopted. Instead, we are told that the US will issue a new 5.56mm round, which has tremendous performance and will also be “green” and lead free…but specifics are in very short supply. Is it an all-copper projectile like the Barnes expanding bullet, with good tactical penetration and dynamic effects in flesh? Info is HERE.    Or something else? Does anyone know anything about actual TESTING of this new load? If so, please post here in “comments.”

With Independence Day upon us, the best possible weaponry for our troops in combat has to be at the top of our priorities.  This old civilian will spend part of the July 4 weekend shooting an International Defensive Pistol Association match – as the Supreme Court so recently reaffirmed, it’s one of the freedoms that Independence Day is all about. And on the next day of Fourth of July weekend, while fireworks are rising into the sky, I’ll be on my range sending some military rifle fireworks toward the berm in celebration of that cherished independence.

Have a great holiday, and feel free to weigh in here on the topics above.

1 COMMENT

  1. I am not a military expert, not stayed at a famous hotel chain last night so…
    Anybody else reads the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifles as a “modernized” version of the B.A.R.?

    I thought that crew served weapons were to be used to lay fields of fire to allow troops to advance to better positions. This weapon seems like a heavy full auto rifle brought to do something it cannot do. The fact that a higher capacity magazine was not designed initially and only after somebody pointed out that a sustained rate of fire might be needed, makes me wonder if this gun was designed for the alleged purpose as stated by the article or by somebody who is not aware of the realities of combat.

    “In the defensive role, the M27 used “far less” ammunition to drop the same number of targets compared to the M249, Clark said.”

    That is till you have somebody shooting back at you.

    Just my 2 grains of salt.

  2. This ammo makes me think of the EFMJ 9mm projectile, which, so far has been vaporware in the civilian market. I suppose the military version that you mentioned in another article last year is consuming the total production of that.

    I guess the alloy base of the projectile (A1) crushes/breaks up on soft targets.

    If it performs as expected, it is certainly better than punching a pencil hole thru & thru, which a) does little tissue damage, and b) doesn’t let much fluid out.

    The procurement bureaucracy seems slow to respond to the front line need to stop the enemy NOW. But I am glad to see they are getting there.

    I wonder if this ammo will be verboten to civilians??

  3. While not a complete armchair soldier I have never been in a firefight and -touch wood- almost certianly never will be.

    With that caveat in place I feel that replacing the M249 (Known in the British military as the LMG) with what is effectively an assault rifle with a bipod and without a quick change barrel, would not be a good idea. The British military did try out this concept with the L86 Light Support Weapon, a longer barrel SA80 fitted with a bipod. I gather it didn’t really work out.

    FWIW I have heard that most firefights in Afghanistan either take place at under 100m or over 600m. (Source: RAF Regiment NCO) Which is why the British military is issuing a “Sharpshooters” rifle in 7.62NATO. (I *think* this a version of the US M110)

  4. I have to say that the 7.62 is a far better round for suppressing fire. However one of the greatest lessons learnt by the British army in WW2 was that the Bren gun .303 with its box magazine badly let us down. The speed with which it emptied its box magazine meant that prolonged sustained fire was impossible. We then adopted the GPMG. Having used this in the Falkand islands it was most effective. For the Falklands we also deployed twice as many as normal. The sheer weight of fire had an amazing effect and rapidly decimated the Argentinians despite our lack of field artillery which the Argies had far more of.It also led the Argentinian command to believe that they faced a far heavier force than they did.
    The Army as always failed to learn from the lesson and shortly issued the LSW a box round machine gun. In Iraq we soon had to order up the minimi a 5.56mm belt feed MG. However it was soon discovered that in Afghanistan we were outgunned by the old soviet gear the Taleban have.
    In the 1980`s I was in Afghanistan observing the Russians. Both we Brits and the Usa were then supplying the muj with Blowpipe(us) and later stinger missiles(the USA). Most of the Russians were armed with the later AK74 and noted in our reports that the Russians were outgunned by the old AK47. Needless to say our observations were ignored and the UK continued to perservere with the SA80. Something which has cost us good soldiers in the current conflict.

  6. The SCAR is a good rifle. I also like the HK416, but either one would be a good replacement. I would miss the M4 platform though. Not sure why the miltary just does not covert their current M4s to the gas piston.

  7. I believe the introduction of a new caliber will be a non-starter. 7.62 Nato and 5.56 Nato rounds will be supplemented with .338 Lapua and .50 for long range sniper work. Doubts have existed about the .223/5.56 for a long time and if push comes to shove, I’ll use .30/7.62 every time.

    The M4 and M16/AR15 platforms have been improved since the early days. An older ex-Marine friend who fought in Vietnam (using an M14) tells of many of his Army buddies being killed when their early M16’s jammed. He told me that the original instructions called for cleaning the early M16’s every 20 rounds. Not very practical in a jungle war. In the intervening years, improvements made by manufacturers other than Colt have forced everyone to improve these weapons significantly. However, I still believe in a .30 caliber rifle.

  8. After reading several studies on how the assumptions that went into the choice of the 5.56mm round are not holding true in Afghanistan at all, it really frustrates me that they are refusing to move to the all-around superior 6.8. The cost of refitting our ground troops with a weapon that can actually return fire against attackers in Afghanistan is nothing compared to the cost of any of the fancier air force or naval projects. They need to do something or the US soldier will continually be at a disadvantage in any terrain or combat situation that doesnot conform to the expected less than 300 yards.

  9. I feel for the kids who are having to give up their 200 round, belt-fed, changeable-barrel SAWs for something that feeds from a 30 round box magazine. Other than the Gas Piston design, is there anything about this new M27 that is better than an M16? Same capacity. Same anemic round. Same non-changeable barrel (low) rate of sustained fire.

    Accuracy’s great, but so is suppressive fire. In certain circumstances, while suppressive fire might not kill as many of the enemy as slower, more accurate fire, suppressive fire can save a lot more American lives, by SUPPRESSING the enemy.

  11. You can’t make a .223 Remington perform as well as “ordinary” 7.62x39mm as a battle or self-defense round!
    No matter WHAT you do with .223 Remington ammo or rifle to “improve” it for anything beyond varmint hunting and plinking!
    You’re up against the unchangeable rules of MATH trying!!

  12. The BAR was the squad automatic weapon in the Pacific and Korea. If I remember correctly it was a 20 round box fed weapon. It worked pretty well and was manueverable enough to be used by attacking troops who were usually supported by belt fed weapons laying down suppressing fire. In any major attack or defensive situation you better have belt fed weapons and I would prefer they be 7.62 NATO

  13. I acquired the EFMJ in both 9mm and .40 from ammunitiontogo.com quite some time ago. Have not had the opportunity to shoot it at anything that would demonstrate the advertised effectiveness though. Don’t know if it is still available.

  14. I am quite familiar with the belt-fed 7.62 M60 as it undoubtedly saved my somewhat skinnier butt many times during the slight misunderstanding we called the Viet Nam war. The M60 was very effective in laying down suppressive fire while we sweated our way into and out of hot zones. For that application, the M60 was a fine weapon. I am not sure that a SCAR (with a 30 round magazine) would have been as effective. The point is that however impressive a gun review may be, the value of any weapon will be determined by the situation. I hope the SCAR is the best fit for whatever situation our troops may encounter, as they deserve nothing less.

  15. It goes without saying that the current occupant in the White House has no great concern for our troops or t he weapons of war they are using.

  16. I never in my life thought I’d hear a Marine officer calling a rifle a gun. Not once, but several times in the Military.com article!

  18. HAPPY BIRTHDAY UNCLE SAM!!

    It never ceases to amaze me how the same fields keep getting plowed over and over. I thought we determined the 5.56 was an inferior anti-personal round, say about 1968 or so…at least I did. I transitioned (forced) from my beloved M-14 to the “Black Rifle” in October 1966. I watched in horor as numberous VC take body hit after body hit and “keep on truckin'”. The
    M-16 platfom is not a “rifleman’s” weapon; nor was it used that way. Hence the phrase “Spray and Pray”. The argument that the 5.56 is so effective because it becomes unstable in flight and “tumbles” into human flesh causing greater tissue damage is only partly true, and outdated. That ballistic phenomenea ocured with the early M-16’s wth slow twist rates. When the Army began to play around with the blaistics of the weapon system and ammo to make it “better” and stop tumbling, they ruined it. The bottom line in my opinion is, high velosity, light weight (low cross sectional density) projectiles can not…hit for hit… inflict the same tissue damage as a heavier projectile.

  19. When I heard about the new round this week I googled m855a1 and got all kinds of info. From what I read or saw on tv the new mg is to look more like the m4 so the mg gunners aren’t targeted so much by snipers.

  20. Bigger is Better! Trying to make the 5.56mm/.223 a manstopper is like training a miniature poodle to be an attack dog. The effort is commendable but the result will be far from satisfactory. The 6.8mm SPC or 7.62 X 39mm is much better, but the 7.62 X 51mm or .308 Winchester is the best combat cartridge for the average soldier. Yes, it does weigh more than the 5.56 and a soldier will carry less ammo, but when one round does the job instead of having to fire off several of the smaller cartridges to take down an enemy, it’s actually more efficient – that is assuming the soldier can shoot properly and not spray bullets wildly from his/her weapon. The .338 is a superior sniper round, but I think the Remington .338 Ultra Mag is a better choice than the Lapua as it has the same ballistics but a smaller diameter case which allows it to be chambered in a Remington 700 or Winchester 70 rifle instead the larger magnum action required for the .338 Lapua based on a necked down .416 Rigby case. However, we may have to follow our NATO allies as they have already adopted the .338 Lapua and we will obediently follow their lead. At least this won’t be as bad as adopting the 9 X 19mm round. Happy 4th of July to all and our (still – for now) great nation.

  21. There are several key questions to be asked here.

    1. After the HK416 was rejected in the service rifle role, why is a modified HK416 being deployed in a support-weapon role?

    2. This M27 is basically a heavy-barreled HK416, which itself is basically an M16 with a short-stroke gas-piston upper. If this is so much better than a standard M16 or M4 that it’s enough to fill the role of a support weapon in a Marine squad, why aren’t we just issuing every Marine rifleman a heavy-barreled M16 with a gas-piston upper? It’s not like there aren’t enough gas-piston uppers on the market.

    3. Come to that … isn’t the FN SCAR an M16 replacement with a heavy barrel and a short-stroke gas-piston upper? Why are we canceling one rifle as a replacement for a current rifle, in order to buy a different, equivalent (but more expensive) rifle as a replacement for a belt-fed light machine gun? What can the M27 do that the SCAR-L can’t? How many SCAR-Ls could we have in a platoon for each M249 replaced with an M27?

    4. There’s a reason virtually every light and general-purpose machine gun the world over is belt-fed and fires from an open bolt. Who on earth thought replacing ours with a magazine-fed heavy rifle firing from a closed bolt was a good idea?

    5. If each company is retaining six M249s in case they need more firepower, doesn’t this seem to be a tacit admission that they already suspect the new heavy rifle won’t have enough firepower for the support role?

  23. Concerning this latest move by the bureaucrats to possibly replace the SAW, as in many situations when it comes to our Military’s procurement record, the following acronym says it all:

    SNAFU

  24. I didn’t bother to plow through all the comments so forgive an old man his cluelessness before I begin. I did read Roger’s comments however, and to you Sir: I most likely read everything you observed. In those days I thought intel/info was important and treated first hand reports as information that “my betters” should see. I likely included Rand Corp studies for corroboration showing the ineffectiveness of American infantry (And yes Marines, you also) when anywhere near evenly matched with NVA Infantry. Their squad were better armed than our plts (usually only 18 bodies and without radios, artillery, plus some air farce, that would have been a very short war). If you’ve gotten this far your probably impatiently wondering, “What’s your f’ing point?”

    Well, there’s nothing particularly new here, this is a 40 year old argument and I’m not aware that the problems have changed… so look for the solutions to be the same old, same old, “Nothing is better than the M-16/5.56 combo and we will keep it until the second coming”. The Marines are obviously on board. I notice that the “new” SAW will come on line just in time for the Marines to claim it was very successful in the recently vacated country of Afghanistan (we’re going to be out of there in July 2010).

    Being one of six Americans who actually knew where Afghanistan was, and having studied the Soviet-Afghan war for a long time, my opinion was sought out during the first year of our involvement there. Gentleman, I’m a psychic… or brilliant. I said the 5.56 was a waste of time, particularly with the jaunty and much loved 16 inch barrel, and our infantry squads would need an assload of 7.62 x 51 or they would lose to the much better armed (but not near as jaunty) Muj.

    That’s where I first found out that my advanced age had ruined my mind. The officers looked at me like I was a child and informed me that they had “optics and electronics”, which apparently trumps the science of ballistics. So I also informed them they would need and assload of batteries to go with the assload of 7.62.

    I have many ironclad rules for this kind of nonsense. Anyone above an O-5 is either a good liar or has reached the end of his career… and he still might be a liar. From that point on we’re dealing with bureaucrats, the difference being that government bureaucrats will avert their gaze when trying to pump sunshine up your ass, while the military variety will speak with religious fervor when they lie. Believe nothing you read, and half of what you see. I will be dead and buried when our next war takes place but never doubt that they will be working on a replacement for the M-4 and the 5.56 from shortly after the first ineffective shot is fired until it’s decided at the end of the conflict to keep the M-4/5.56 combo.

  25. I celebrated the 4th with 2 things representing the freedom’s we deserve. a) an AR-15 M4 replica b) make that a SUPRESSED M4. If it were not for the fight that many do outside of our country for our freedom and independence and the fight that those of us do right here with our politicians none of this would have been possible!

  26. BTW, it needs to be pointed out that there are severe cuts coming to our military. When they reject any kind of new weapon, and decide to retain the garbage we have, the military establishment will do so with the perfect cover: “NO MONEY”.

  27. Main reason for keeping the M-16/M-4 AT ALL is the large number of female GIs!
    Light weight, short length, nil perceived recoil leave it the rifle that the Army now just can’t replace!

  28. The eternal debate of cartridge/gun for the warrior always proves entertaining. Can I suggest that when talking about the military, as opposed to LE, the bigger story is can you win the battle/war with all resources available. The old expression of “cannon fodder” isn’t around for nothing. If the individual solider absolutely had to come out on top in every firefight/engagement then there would have been no Monte Casino, Stalingrad, or Bloody Tarawa. No different today in the sandbox. The firefight that the platoon is about to loose can be turned around with gunships/drones/artillery or more young men.

    The folks who put men in harms way care more about the strategic than the tactical. I don’t think this issue even moves the needle for those in charge. As we have seen by the current decision its more of an accounting issue than having each ground pounder outfitted with the absolute best of everything. But for what its worth I be voting for the .30-06. It was good in ’03 and it’s still sweet.

  30. Check out the Grendel: 6.5x39mm, 25 rounds fit into a 30 round M16 magazine (with modified feed lips and follower). Ballistic coefficient is above .500, and the 123 grain Lapua is still supersonic at 1000 meters (better performance for lighter weight than 7.62×51 NATO).

    6.8mm loses accuracy and power rapidly after 300 meters – good for in close, but not the best for both short and long-range engagements.

    Apparently, Alexander Arms’ licensing requirements are keeping the round, and weapons built for it, from being as widely adopted as it should be.

    http://www.65grendel.com/

    I have carried the M16A1, M16A2, now M4, since 1970, and will be carrying an M4 again in Afghanistan this winter. I am “comfortable” with the M16 platform, but feel that a 14.5 inch barrel doesn’t provide the accuracy & power necessary for the longer-range engagements in that country. Better sighting equipment (red-dots are worthless beyond 300 meters) to include accurate range determination, and MUCH better training are VITAL. (Army statistics show that even experienced Soldiers only estimate range correctly about 40% of the time. Wide open distances, such as in Afg, tend to cause UNDER estimation – you think you are shooting at something 300 meters distant, when it is actually at 500 meters or greater.)

    SCAR, ACR, even Robinson XCR, would be improvements – especially as each would allow barrel (and even caliber) changes for specific needs. Ambidexterous magazine and bolt release buttons, folding/collapsing stocks, are helpful for those with shorter arms. And finally: I have ALWAYS disliked having to scrape all the carbon out of the M16’s bolt carrier! The short-stroke gas pistons of the newer weapons preclude this, and means that you can fire much longer without the guts of the piece becoming so gunked-up as to cause a stoppage.

    I have read the info about the M249 replacement for a squad-level suppression weapon: It is ONLY for the USMC, Army is sticking with the SAW. The requirement for the new piece includes that it must fire semi- from a closed bolt, and full-auto from a closed bolt. It is supposedly more “agile” to carry for a fire team member while in the assault (10 pounds vs. 23 pounds with the SAW), uses the same magazines as everyone else, and (as noted by someone else) doesn’t cause the man carrying it to stand out so much. I have seen lots of short-barreled SAWs being carried, and instead of the 200 round box, they have a 100 round “assault bag”. The troops use it as a big, heavy submachine gun. The linked ammo, in the bag or the box, clinks noisily, nullifying attempts at any stealthly approach to an enemy position. I would prefer rifles, light and medium machine guns, to all use the same cartridge (same-same .30 M1/.30-06 from WWII and Korea), and based on performance I think that should be the 6.5mm Grendel.

    Incidentally, my family, with my two sisters with their families, had a great 5th of July; we went out to the woods and fired everything from .22LR revolvers to M9 and Glock 19, to a .30-30 saddle gun, an AR15 and AK-Clone. GREAT FUN AND AFFIRMATION OF OUR 2A RIGHT!

  32. Below we have the abstract for the monograph above.

    “14. ABSTRACT
    Operations in Afghanistan frequently require United States ground forces to engage and destroy the enemy at ranges beyond 300 meters. While the infantryman is ideally suited for combat in Afghanistan, his current weapons, doctrine, and marksmanship training do not provide a precise, lethal fire capability to 500 meters and are therefore inappropriate. Comments from returning soldiers reveal that about fifty percent of engagements occur past 300 meters. Current equipment, training, and doctrine are optimized for engagements under 300 meters and on level terrain. This monograph reviews the small arms capability of the infantry squad from World War I to present. It then discusses current shortfalls with cartridge lethality, weapons and optics configurations, the squad designated marksman concept and finally the rifle qualification course. Potential solutions in each of these areas are discussed”

  33. “The firefight that the platoon is about to loose can be turned around with gunships/drones/artillery or more young men. ”

    “More young men” as a weapons system?
    Do you want YOUR son dying to make up for Washington’s refusal to choose effective small arms, train its infantry properly, and use it in a no-holds-barred manner in the Afghanistans and Iraqs?
    As for gunships, drones, or artillery “turning around” situations the infantry is losing, that sure hasn’t happened in either Afghanistan or Iraq – despite PLENTY of such boy toys being used there by Washington.
    Bottom line still is only infantry can win wars of occupation.

  35. I had misremembered the report linked above when I said 6.8mm. In any case, either the 6.5mm grendel or the 6.8mm rounds outperform anything they are going to be able to squeeze out of the 5.56m by a fair margin.

    It amazes me that such a core part of our fighting ability is so willingly relegated to historical mistakes. What other part of a soldier’s gear has been essentially unimproved since the 60’s.

  36. “the SOST is the way to go, and the 6.8 is garbage compared to the 6.5 for A-Stan distances when it comes to drop, wind and retained energy…”

    Forget “new” cartridges for Afghanistan or Iraq. NO basic rifle mission there can’t be done with battle-proven .308; after all, sniper rifles in .308 had an effective range of over a half mile from Nam to now.
    Battle-proven rifle designs in .308 abound, too. I’d suggest the FAL.

  37. Probably a dead thread by now, but here it is. Can anyone point out the exact reason this decision was made? Seems a little vague? I think I predicted that we’d get to the end of the war before deciding on the M-4/5.56 combo, but I was wrong. They’ve decided not to wait. Now they can buy those new Lazyboy and couch combos for every field grade… gotta get things done before the cuts come down. And that last sentence is a real knee slapper.

    http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20100711.aspx
    SCAR Sort Of Scrapped

    July 11, 2010: SOCOM has backed off on SCAR (its new assault rifle design), and decided that the M-16 and M-4 aren’t so inferior after all. Last year, a new American assault rifle, SCAR, was issued to a battalion of U.S. Army Rangers headed for Afghanistan. This was the first big combat test for SCAR, which had completed field testing in 2007. The rangers found SCAR to be, in most cases, as good as the M-16s and M-4s it replaced, but not markedly superior. As a result, SOCOM backed off on its plans to replace all M-16s and M-4s with SCAR weapons.

    SCAR was part of several recent attempts to develop a replacement for the M-16, if only because the M-16 has been in use longer (nearly half a century) than any other American infantry weapon. What advocates for a new rifle, and critics of the M-16/4 fail to take into account is that the rifle has undergone numerous tweaks and improvements since the 1960s. Most telling, surveys of combat users report that the weapon works, and that they are satisfied it. Sure, the troops would like something new and exciting, but not at the expense of ruggedness and reliability. That’s what hurt SCAR, where combat use revealed some unforeseen quirks. This happened while in the hands of a lot of troops who had used M-16s in combat, and now wanted them back. Combat troops tend to be very wary of new technology, especially if it’s supposed to replace something that, well, works. It’s a matter of self-preservation. New is nice, but not if it gets you killed.

    SCAR (Special operations forces Combat Assault Rifle) was a SOCOM (Special Operations Command) effort to develop a new assault rifle that had some of the characteristics of the (now abandoned) U.S. Army XM-8 rifle. SOCOM had the money, and authority to develop their own weapons. And SCAR is mainly for use by SOCOM troops.

    SOCOM wanted a weapon that did everything the XM-8 did, and a little more. Back in 2003, SOCOM asked rifle manufacturers to submit proposals, and FN (a Belgian firm) came up with the best ideas. One advantage FN has was its ability to quickly implement requests for design changes. FN’s rapid prototyping shop was often able to turn out a new part in hours. This, and FNs long history of good weapons design, gave them the edge. SCAR has a more reliable short-stroke, gas piston operating system, and a floating barrel for better accuracy, plus several other improvements over the current M-4/M-16.

    There are two basic models of the weapon. The 5.56mm SCAR-L weighs 3.5 kg/7.7 pounds (empty), while the 7.62mm SCAR-H weighs 3.9 kg/8.5 pounds (empty). A 30 round 5.56mm magazine weighs a little under 450 grams/a pound, while a 20 round magazine of 7.62mm ammo weighs nearly half a kilogram (a little over a pound). Special sights can weigh up to a kilogram, so a fully loaded SCAR won’t weigh much more than 4.6 kg/ ten pounds. FN also came up with a grenade launcher for SCAR.

    Both models operate the same way, and have many interchangeable parts. SCAR-L is basically a replacement for the M4, which was designed (with a shorter barrel) as a “close combat” version of the M16. The SCAR-H was to also replace the M14, a 1950s era 7.62mm weapon (a replacement for the World War II M1) that is still favored for long range and sniper work. The SCAR design is the result of much feedback from the field. For example, the rate of fire was lowered to 600 RPM (rounds per minute) from the 800 typical with the M14 and M16. This makes SCAR easier to hold on target when firing full auto.

    SCAR-H can be quickly converted to fire AK-47 ammo (the 7.62×39 round) with a change out of the barrel and receiver. Both models can be fitted with a longer and heavier sniper barrel. Thus this ability to quickly change the barrel length enables the SOCOM to equip their troops with the specific weapon they need. SCAR is also built to be more rugged than the M-16. The barrel is good for some 36,000 rounds, twice as many as the M-16. Barrels may be switched by users without special tools. Both models of SCAR take all the special sights and other accessories SOCOM troops favor. SCAR is meant to be easily modified and personalized for each user. It’s expected that SOCOM experience with SCAR will influence the next generation of U.S. Army and Marine Corps small arms.

    SOCOM has not given up on SCAR, but it cannot ignore the fact that many of its troops are not yet ready to give up on old reliable. Other nations are having the same problem. No one has really come up with a replacement for the M-16. Even the AK-47 was replaced, in Russian service, by an M-16 type weapon. Same with most other AK-47 users, especially after the Cold War ended. The M-16 still has a lot of problems, but lack of popularity among combat troops is not one of them.