M-16 rifle bites the dust?

Seattle Times

"BAGHDAD, Iraq — After nearly 40 years of battlefield service around the globe, the M-16 may be on its way out as the standard Army assault rifle because of flaws highlighted during the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
U.S. officers in Iraq say the M-16A2 — the latest incarnation of the 5.56 mm firearm — is quietly being phased out of front-line service because it has proven too bulky for use inside the Humvees and armored vehicles that have emerged as the principal mode of conducting patrols since the end of major fighting on May 1.

"Iraq is the final nail in the coffin for the M-16," said a commander who asked not to be identified.

Instead of the M-16, which also is prone to jamming in Iraq's dusty environment, M-4 carbines are widely issued to American troops...."

The M-4 is just a shorter "spiffed-up" version
of the M-16. I have had MANY, MANY, people tell
me that all the M-16 needs is proper and regular
maintainence.

If they are "over-lubed" they will
attract grit and sand that will prevent them from
operating properly.

Other weapons, such as the venerable AK-47 series,
require less care and are much more robust and reliable
"in the field".

It is my understanding that many U.S. soldiers and Marines
would prefer a thirty caliber rifle that would have a greater
effective range and more stopping power(M-14/FN-FAL/G3).

Greater effective range and power come at the expense of
size and weight of ammunition. These are the kinds of
trade-offs that are familiar to folks on CPF.


"Lux" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they've had these kinds of problems as far back as Vietnam.

Never liked the 16. Never liked ANYTHING about it at all.

The TOE for my outfit allowed me to carry any firearm I wanted as long as one was available "in the system" or I acquired it myself.

My usual choice for normal "field use", even though it was kind of heavy and bulky was an XM-21 (Basicly an M-14). It was worth the extra weight, believe me.

IF someone GAVE me an M-16 right now, I'd trade it for something else even though I'm no longer "humping it" in either desert or jungle.

The basic M16 is always going to be modified as were the M14, The M1, the '03. I grew up with the M16 and its variants. I teach the M16/AR-15 to officers right now. I believe it to be the finest weapon available to the average soldier.

The AK-47 is a fine weapon for the "uneducated masses" (not saying that you are uneducated if you like and own one, just why it was developed). It is easy to maintain, drop it in mud pick it up and go. The tolerances are very loose incomparison to the M16.

The military preaches lubrication. Lubrication is appropriate in most environments, and not at all in others. I had an M16 in Somalia and an M-4. The M-4 allowed me to fight from inside the HUMV due to its compact size. I cleaned that weapon every day, but I did not lube it. The M16 sat next to my door in case of long range engagements. I did not clean that weapon other than to prevent rust during the monsoon (exterior components). It was never lubed, it never failed to operate in the 9 months I spent in that vacation Mecca. I do not lube my weapons here in the desert. The dust is too fine and will attach to lubricants and eventually foul the bolt without firing.

The military is not abandoning the M16, just the form most of us know it in. The basic mechanical design is the same, just more compact.

Is the AK-47 compact enough for use in a vehicle?

Alot of guys were supposedly picking up AK's for use inside Humvee's on the road to Baghdad. folding stock version is pretty compact. I saw some photos of British sterling submachine guns being used by an SF crew inside their modified Hummer. If I were going out there I would want a modified M-14 like the Benelli modified M-1's and M-14's of the 1970's, that 7.62 round is bad news!

TSG /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I liked the M-16A2. Great weapon for accuracy and fairly problem free if maintained correctly.

From what I understand the jamming issue in Vietnam was mostly resolved with the addition of the "forward assist".

I would love the 7.62 variant of the AR15 to use as a game rifle. Most people are less accurate with their $800 Browning hunting rifle and $500+ scope at shots over 300 yards than the grunt in the field shooting his M16 with open sights. With 2 weeks of training with an open sight M16 a good, not even great shooter can hit a chest size target 9 of 10 times at a range of 500 yards. Imagine what you could do with a 12x Leupold or Kahles scope? You could probably hit beer cans at 500 yards.

The Krinkov version of the AK is very compact. Most of the AK's now in Russian production are very small, and use the 5.45mm round. Europe in general has been moving more toward the PDW (Personal Defense Weapon) a sort of half pistol, half sub gun in calibers as small as 4.7mm.

The M16 debate is never going to go away, it hasn't been replaced yet. Longest service life of any modern long gun in the US military. I liked it when I was issued it, I own one now. Very functional, and I do prefer it over the two versions of the AK I own. Two different weapons designed to do very different things. The biggest difference is the AK was designed to be cheap to build, that is why Eugene Stoner came up with the AR-180, so third world countries could build it. The M16's then revolutionary use of Aluminum alloy made it hard to build in countries without good metallurgy. The AK was built to be cheap, functional, and always fire, like most Soviet era products. It isn't very accurate and it isn't as flexible as the M-16/AR15 series. I keep hearing stories about soldiers throwing away a good M-16 and picking up an AK, but I have never met one.

EDITED to say: The military has already decided to move foward on a bizarre looking and very expensive bullpup type rifle that fires grenades and has all kinds of bells and whistles. You can beat this topic to death at ar15.com.

Ar's look cool and all, but if my butts on the line I'll take the AK with much more effective 7.62x39

As has been mentioned, this debate about the effectiveness of the M-16 and it's variants vs. the AK or any other foreign service rifle has been around for a whole generation. It's not going to be resolved here. Each person has their own opinions--just like flashlights, each one "shines" under differing conditions. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Weight, servicability, rounds carried, rounds per minute, accuracy, etc.--all variables that so far, have not been able to make all people under all conditions happy.

Do I like the M-16? All I can say is that it was an adequate weapon in my opinion, but for the money the govt, is shelling out to the lowest bidder, the issued weapon could be much better.

accuracy-sometimes you're in dense vegitation and a carbine would be better. Other times your manning the perimeter in the desert where it's flat for miles.

maitenance--easy to strip and clean, but I do find that it jams a little too easy even when it is properly maintained. It's mechanical--something's bound to happen within a few thousand rounds, so what's 1 malfunction in 2,000 successful rounds. A little carbon builds up, you take care of it. If it's as bad as the situation warrants (and people make the situation to be), that's what sidearms, grenades, crew served weapons, picking up a dead man's rifle and if it comes down to it, fixing bayonets is for.

Rounds carried--yes, I'd like to have a bullet that does the most dammage, but when it comes down to it, I want more bullets at the same carried weight. I don't care if you're Rambo/Jackie Chan, if you get hit with a .223, you're going to be out of the fight just as well as if you were hit with a .308. Yes, you can throw around kenitic energy and statictics, but I want more possibilites to make a hit. If we're talking sniper rifle, well, that's a different story /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif gimme a big 5-0 /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/xyxgun.gif


I may not "love" the basic M-16A2, but if I was over there right now, today, I'd want the M-4 (pretty much the same design sans the length) with holographic sight and Surefire strapped on for all the close area fighting that seems to be going on. This is not the "over hills and dales" of other wars, this is a lot of "urban" and house clearing stuff.

Okay, I'm done /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dedhorse.gif

-Jason

Army Times reports that the M16 family will begin phase-out within two years to the H&K XM8 in traditional 5.56mm. Sharpshooters and some special units that may require other calibers will use variants of the weapon, as the XM is a series of weapons including the 7.62 x 39 (AK) caliber and up to the .50 all based upon a similar operating system.

I love my AR15. It's one of the most accurate and quick to operate weapons systems ever devised and as a 3-gun rifle of choice it has survived my dusty environment exceptionally well. So, if any of you wants to get rid of your "unreliable" or "prone to jamming" dust collector just you let me know. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

I can give you some background on the M-16.

In 1965 I was involved in the shooting of a film for TRW in Cleveland Ohio. TRW had a weapons division and produced a 25MM cannon called at that time, the TRW 6225. The 6225 was a 25mm version of the M-16 which was designed by Eugene Stoner.

Trw had a complete production machine shop to produce and refine the 6225 at the military test range at Port Clinton, Ohio. We filmed the government tests of this cannon over a weeks time at the Port Clinton range.

During the week we filmed, Gene Stoner was on hand for the tests, and to answer questions posed by the government and military people.

While at lunch one afternoon we, (the motion picture crew) were priviledged to have Mr. Stoner sit at out table.

The talk got around to the performance of the M-16 rifle in Vietnam. Mr. Stoner said and I quote, " The M16 rifle having problems in Vietnam is not the rifle I designed." He went on to describe the changes the government made to the weapon which made it cheaper to produce. Such changes as chroming the barrel bore, and other internal parts of the weapon. Other changes were made to the 5.56 cartridge including the substitution of the powder Stoner specified, to a cheaper and dirtier burning powder which helped foul the weapon.

Later in the war when the government finally realized that Stoner was right, the bore of the M16 was chromed as were other parts. The powder in the cartridge was also changed to produce a cleaner burning round.

Troops were told of the necessity of frequently cleaning the M-16 to kept it functioning.

In Iraq, problems with the M-4/M-16 were caused when troops did not clean the weapon, and when they did clean properly, the lubricant used (CLP) attracted dust and caused malfunctions.

Troops that cleaned their weapons daily and used a lubricant by the name of Miltec which did not attract dust did not have problems.

Troops in Iraq did report having problems with kills made at distances of more then 300 meters. They felt the M16's 5.56mm round did not have the knock down power for long range kills.

The 101 st. Airborne deployed with the older M-14 weapons which fired the 7.62 (.308) caliber cartridge. The found this combination very effective for desert operations. 82nd. Airborne troops stated that the wished they had deployed with M14's at the squad level as the 101st. did.

Many older operators who were issued the M-14 before the M-16 was issued prefer the M-14 for it's knockdown power. Some of those who can choose their weapons still go to war with the M-14.

The M-4/M-16 is a good weapon for urban operations and ranges out to 300 meters.

A mix of M-4/M-16's and M-14's available at the squad level would be especially good for the type of operations our troops are involved in today.

Tombeis,

I also heard the 300m thing. I thought that's a problem restricted to M4 though.

I also read that 5.56mm was having problems knocking a person (and keeping them) down in Afghanistan, the bullet's not powerful enough to go thru all the winter weight clothing.

Geoff

Back when I was in the USMC I was issued both the M14 and the M16. I always prefered the M14 - I just KNEW that it would fire, and I was always more accurate on the rifle range with it. But all in all, it depends where you will use it, in urban environments or the jungle, the M16 might have the edge, but for open areas I would always want the M14. Just a gut feeling that I would trust my life to that rifle, the M16 seemed like a toy. I always heard stories that in Vietnam the lever action 30-30 was popular.

[ QUOTE ]
GeoffChan said:
I also read that 5.56mm was having problems knocking a person (and keeping them) down in Afghanistan, the bullet's not powerful enough to go thru all the winter weight clothing.


Geoff

[/ QUOTE ]

I read the same thing Geoff, I also saw quotes from a report detailing the performance of the M-16 and it's variants stating that based on afteraction reports from Afghanistan the rifles took an average of 10 hits in center mass to bring down an enemy target and keep them down during the mountain warfare phase citing the heavy layers of clothing being difficult to penetrate with the 5.56. I have also heard that the bullet often passes through the targets in normal conditions without creating sufficient wound channels or stopping power, they believe this is a result of the newer barrel twists, meant to stabilize the bullet for improved range, over the older VN era M16's whose rifling made the bullet "tumble" in flight creating massive wound channels. Yet another problem that is arising is that the junction where the reciever and barrel meet is suffering weaknesses from overuse. Barrels are loosening from the stress expansion of the aluminum forgings causing serious accuracy problems.

In the 1970's Italian companies Benelli and Barretta were taking Garands, M1A's and M14's and cutting them down and mounting folding stocks on them for use by their alpine and paratroop units. I think these would be some excellent weapons to equip mechanized units with. I hear there is a battle going on right now to try to save 300,000 M-14's in our arsenals from destruction by the federal government and have them turned over to the Civilian Marksmanship Program for sale to participants more can be found out on this by contacting the NRA.

From what I understand the M9 pistol was performing poorly in Iraq too. and tankers and Bradley crews were also picking up AK's for use as sidearms. Magazine springs for the M9 were so loose that cartridges were falling out of the magazines and the weapons were not feeding properly. Stress fractures are commonplace with the weapons too.

Oh, M9--there's another hot topic.

-Jason

Just waiting for the 1911 guys to jump in here now!!!

Before they jump in with the 45 stories, I am proud owner of a Colt Delta Elite in 10mm, now there is a round!

Regardless of the fate of M-16/M-4, I have high hopes for XM8. It's an H&K.