| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| M-16 Rifle May Be on Way Out of U.S. Army |
| 2003-11-22 |
| 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. The M-16, at nearly 40 inches, is widely considered too long to aim quickly within the confines of a vehicle during a firefights, when reaction time is a matter of life and death. "It’s a little too big for getting in and out of vehicles," said Brig. Gen. Martin Dempsey, commander of the 1st Armored Division, which controls Baghdad. "I can tell you that as a result of this experience, the Army will look very carefully at how it performed." Instead of the M-16, which also is prone to jamming in Iraq’s dusty environment, M-4 carbines are now widely issued to American troops. The M-4 is essentially a shortened M-16A2, with a clipped barrel, partially retractable stock and a trigger mechanism modified to fire full-auto instead of three-shots bursts. It was first introduced as a personal defense weapon for clerks, drivers and other non-combat troops. "Then it was adopted by the Special Forces and Rangers, mainly because of its shorter length," said Col. Kurt Fuller, a battalion commander in Iraq and an authority on firearms. Fuller said studies showed that most of the combat in Iraq has been in urban environments and that 95 percent of all engagements have occurred at ranges shorter than 100 yards, where the M-4, at just over 30 inches long, works best. Still, experience has shown the carbines also have deficiencies. The cut-down barrel results in lower bullet velocities, decreasing its range. It also tends to rapidly overheat and the firing system, which works under greater pressures created by the gases of detonating ammunition, puts more stress on moving parts, hurting its reliability. Consequently, the M-4 is an unlikely candidate for the rearming of the U.S. Army. It is now viewed as an interim solution until the introduction of a more advanced design known as the Objective Individual Combat Weapon, or OICW. There is no date set for the entry into service of the OICW, but officers in Iraq say they expect its arrival sooner than previously expected because of the problems with the M-16 and the M-4. "Iraq is the final nail in the coffin for the M-16," said a commander who asked not to be identified. The current version of the M-16 is a far cry from the original, which troops during the Vietnam War criticized as fragile, lacking power and range, and only moderately accurate. At the time, a leading U.S. weapons expert even recommended that American soldiers discard their M-16s and arm themselves with the Kalashnikov AK-47 rifle used by their Vietcong enemy. Although the M16A1 — introduced in the early 1980s — has been heavily modernized, experts say it still isn’t as reliable as the AK-47 or its younger cousin, the AK-74. Both are said to have better "knockdown" power and can take more of a beating on the battlefield. |
| Posted by:Jarhead |
| #13 You all trash 5.56mm but the high velocity, accuracy and tumbling affects are the pro's involved with it. It is also much lighter than 7.62mm and allows troops to carry more ammunition into the fight. The diameter of the round is only one factor of stopping power. It's all about weighing pros and cons. I'll trade the likelyhood of a one hit kill for the ability to carry more ammo and shoot accurately. OICW is way too far out to think about. The new XM-8 is the way to go. Versitile and more reliable (H&K makes it). Who cares if you think its ugly... My suggestion: Keep the 5.56mm in the XM-8 for line troops (except snipers who specialize in one shot kills... then 7.62mm or .50Cal) and go back to the .45 (H&K has higher capacity than 1911) for a sidearm. |
| Posted by: Anonymous6373 2004-09-09 1:38:48 PM |
| #12 Sorry to still be bringing this topic up (if that's impolite - can we talk about this by E-mail or messaging service?) but I know for a pretty fact that the government's more or less enamored with the .40 S&W; the MP5/10 is itself the invention-by-request of the FBI, but that round's just about dead because the recoil ended up resulting in the use of an underpowered "FBI Load" that the .40 S&W replicated off the bat, more or less obsoleting the 10mm Auto, and at last check that too killed it in the special forces, who seem to stick to the .45 and the 9mm (or at least the Navy SEALs do, in the Sig P226). I prefer the .45 ACP as a handgun round, but I'll take a 9mm in a submachine gun - high capacity is the point of one, in my opinion! |
| Posted by: Lu Baihu 2003-11-23 12:45:29 PM |
| #11 didn't the FBI go back to 9mm MP5s? I know the government's hooked on .40 S&W Don't know what the feebs are using, but the 9mm was dropped like a warm, moist fece by just about anyone in the military that could do so. Still the 'standard' sidearm for line troops, but the operators promptly went back to .45 acp. Far as tolerances, 'forgiving' is a fine characteristic in a handgun. I love my 1911 rep, I know it will never, ever fail me. Do you need it in a long gun? That's the big point of disagreement, ain't it? It's still nice to hit what you aim at out to 300m, which the M16 will do nicely. And I say we can't issue MP5s/10s to everyone because of cost, not because I think they're inferior. Too expensive to issue, is the point. That's why only the 'special' units get 'em. I'm old school, so I prefer the .45 acp to the lesser 9mm (i can hear the howls already). That's why I humbly suggest reissuing the M3. |
| Posted by: commo 2003-11-23 12:46:45 AM |
| #10 Rafael> The OICW's worse - it's top-heavy, and the option of bludgeoning people with the M16 buttstock just isn't there. commo> 1) re the XM8 - :P [and note to mojo - if the conversion kit stuff's real, they will chamber for bigger-than-spitwads] 2) re tolerances - the "GI .45s" (the original Colt Government Model 1911 pistols) were pretty loose too, thus their reliability; more recently the things've been tightened up, but I hear they still work fine due to computer-aided precision in manufacturing, so here's hoping the XM8 is tight (enough for [match-grade?] accuracy) yet tolerant enough that it could vie with the AK on reliability ... 3) MP5/10s - Actually, didn't the FBI go back to 9mm MP5s? I know the government's hooked on .40 S&W in Glock or H&K USP Compact, but truthbetold, I prefer MP5 to your vaunted M3 - there's just so much versatility to it (such as scope, laser, sight mountings), the troops are more likely to be familiarized with it, especially the cops among the reservists, I just like the thing better ... ... and who among you here wouldn't prefer THIS! |
| Posted by: Lu Baihu 2003-11-23 12:07:42 AM |
| #9 because the round that entered his hip just came out his left testicle ouch! Anyway, not many cut down .30 cals around. Shortstock mini 14s like the Rugers, maybe? The gist of the article seemed to be that troops couldn't bring their 16 to bear from their humvee/bradley/m1 (seems they would have it sticking out the window ALREADY, but that's not PC). And also that the Bad Guys© were close-in, i.e., no need for the 700m punch of the .308 win. If a tanker needs to put lead out there in volume, a .45 will make the spinchter pucker just fine, and will ruin your day out to about 2 blocks. Any further, they should be using the coax or Ma Duece. I guess after Clinton, we should be pleased that the troops are even issued firing pins, much less ammo. I've also read that all they have is CMP to clean their weapons. Anyone's ever been to the NTC or 29 Palms knows that sh*t is nothing but dirt glue. Can't blame the 16 for jamming in those conditions, it's just piss poor leadership, AGAIN. Same old story. |
| Posted by: commo 2003-11-22 11:50:07 PM |
| #8 H&K MP5's are good weapons once you're actually inside a building. But, If we're talking about fighting street to street they could convert a mini-14 (we're talking about hostilities at 100 yrds or less) & put a heavy ass round in there, something like a 7.62 or .30-30 that will punch through, & be real accurate up to 150 yrds. AK's are great under 100 yrds. M-16A2s are great for longer ranges, and extremely accurate, nice flat trajectory and the round is cruising. Their problem is you have to keep them twice as clean as the AK to get the same type of reliability. As most of you all know the reason reason we went to 5.56 in the first place (besides the NATO insanity). The tumbling movement after the strike of the round was meant to maim as much as it was to kill. The thought being that terribly wounded enemy soldiers would slow up the rest of their troops as well as create a mental shock to them. (seeing your buddy screaming his ass off because the round that entered his hip just came out his left testicle) Essentially wounding and knocking enemy soldiers out of the fight vice straight out killing them was also meant to drain the enemy of his logistics. Sounds crazy I know, I wouldn't even bring it up if I hadn't been taught about it in my line of work. We should've known those 5.5.6 rounds were not going to punch through doors or really have the knock down power needed for quick urban clashes. I would've gone no less than a .243 myself, .270 better yet. If a round (.223) is too small for a deer by most state regs, then it's too small for a human in my book. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-11-22 10:48:43 PM |
| #7 Chamber for 7.62/.30cal instead of them spitwads. So it kicks a little, so what? At least what you soot stays down. The stubbys are a good idea too. |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-11-22 10:17:02 PM |
| #6 Yeah, the 9mm and .45 aren't for long-range work, but they're in an urban environment. Economy-wise (and don't doubt for a second it's not all about dollars) rolling out M3s makes sense. Issuing everyone MP5/10s is out of the question, the OICW is a boondoggle and by admission it's only meant for the frontline infantry troops. Maybe, just maybe, the Army is ready to admit that issuing EVERYONE the same weapon isn't the best idea. M3s are cheap, 9mm nato is plentiful, you're working 100m and in, what's the problem? AKs are more reliable because tolerances are so loose, which makes them pretty inaccurate. And it's not like they're smaller/lighter than 16s. And maybe all those surplus 16s will end up in the CMP! WOOT! |
| Posted by: commo 2003-11-22 10:07:35 PM |
| #5 Of course, the AK-47 has a better knock down capability. It fires a fatter round at twice the weight. Also it isn't news that AK is better desert and jungle gun. We've known that since Vietnam. I'm not sure going to a .45 or 9mm round is an answer. Those are effective rounds at close quarters (as long as your using a supersonic 115 or 124 grain 9mm), but they are next to worthless at medium and long range. Also the OICW is hardly a smaller arm. Every photo I have seen looks more like a small artillery piece than an assault weapon. |
| Posted by: Douglas De Bono 2003-11-22 9:38:38 PM |
| #4 the jihadis will die of laughter before they die of a 5.56x45mm out of this ... Oh, sh*t! We would have to make sure the troop's lipstick and high heels matched the stock, though. |
| Posted by: commo 2003-11-22 8:35:21 PM |
| #3 There's the XM8 Lightweight Assault Rifle, though if the guys there aren't using the 7.62x39 conversion kit (as of now just a rumor, but allegedly it uses an AK-47 type magazine well and feeds accordingly), the jihadis will die of laughter before they die of a 5.56x45mm out of this ... |
| Posted by: Lu Baihu 2003-11-22 8:30:55 PM |
| #2 In terms of bulk, I'm not so sure that the OICW is any better. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2003-11-22 7:57:31 PM |
| #1 That .22 caliber round is also too wimpy for the mountain fighting in Afghanistan. I'd be interested to know how many M14s have been issued up there. Anyway, maybe it's time to modify the grease gun for 9mm, or just let some contracts to have more manufactured in .45 acp. Trying to get a -16 through a top hatch is a pain in the ass. 9mm or .45 is fine for urban fighting. |
| Posted by: commo 2003-11-22 7:23:51 PM |
