Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/27/2003 5:19:22 AM EDT
FWIW: The following e-mail is supposedly from someone inside the US arsenal system. I cannot confirm. Take it for what it's worth.

SD


This response is from someone in the US arsenal system on that AP article about the M16:

While the M16 family of weapons is not perfect, the reality is there is not much on the horizon that can really compete. Every concept that has come and gone in recent years is either too expensive, too heavy, not accurate enough or very unreliable. The OICW was not meant as a total replacement for the M16 as some would speculate, but rather as an improvement in the total force concept. The current grenadier position equipped with the M16/M203 combination is where the OICW will be employed. Also with the OICW weighing in at over 20 lbs and a sophisticated fire control device the payload and reliability issues are bound to be problems once it is in field. I predict the OICW will not have many friends at least in initial fielding.

As far as "the nail in the coffin" comment and the perceived reliability of the AK series goes - the desert environment and urban warfare is not the ideal environment for the M16 let alone most machined metal parts systems to begin with. We discovered that out in the last Gulf War and have since begun to make small improvements in the metallurgy, cleaning cycles, lubricants, etc that has made a big difference. The news that no one hears of course is that the AK is no panacea. The forces that employ the AK build in the expectation that problems will occur and they usually plan for it - extra bolts, barrels etc. Arab countries using the AK for the last 20 years have learned this lesson much the way we are now with the M16. The biggest difference between the AK and the M16 is the deployment policies in place by the US and most of the forces that use the AK. For the most part, most of these countries hand out the weapons with little regard to the effectiveness and well-being of the individual soldier - they end up as cannon fodder at the end of the day anyway! With the average cost and lifespan of the normal AK used by our enemies being about $10.00 and less than three months respectively, the ROI makes the AK sound like a more resilient system but this is misleading accounting. The AK has stamped steel components that are relatively cheap to produce which consequently results in low quality. Due to the slop in the metal parts, sand in the receiver often does not hamper actual function performance, but does impact velocity and accuracy. They get Bullets in the Bore sometimes daily! They have reliability issues that are simply different.

We are investigating the function issues with the M4 carbine which has been shown to be a factor with the shorter barrel and I will agree with the last sentence about the knock-down power, the 5.54 and the 7.62 X 39mm ammo does show an improved lethality over our 5.56 mm, but we will fix that real soon.

Link Posted: 11/27/2003 5:39:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/27/2003 5:43:33 AM EDT by QCMGR]
Originally Posted By SailorDude: [u]FWIW: The following e-mail is supposedly .....I will agree with the last sentence about the knock-down power, the 5.54 and the 7.62 X 39mm ammo does show an improved lethality over our 5.56 mm, but we will fix that real soon.
View Quote
[size=6]?[/size=6] If it was a problem why not fix it during the Vietnam War
Link Posted: 11/27/2003 6:48:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/27/2003 6:48:49 AM EDT by M4arc]
[b][size=6]OMG[/size=6][/b] we've beat this to death! [beathorse] [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=175309[/url] [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=175057[/url] [rolleyes]
Top Top