Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/22/2003 4:45:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2003 6:16:17 PM EDT by Agrippa]
story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=4&u=/ap/20031122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_goodbye_m_16

M-16 Rifle May Be on Way Out of U.S. Army
Sat Nov 22, 3:55 PM ET

By SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Writer

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.

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.

With all these stories, you would think people would be insisting that our soldiers be armed with AK-47s, reducing the fallacy that it is a "terrorist" weapon, but a weapon of "freedom".




Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:00:16 PM EDT
And at the same time, the M4 has been found to be deficient at the longer engagement ranges we've been working with in the deserts of Afghanistan and Iraq.

There is no one perfect rifle. Vehicular crews should be carrying 9mm (or better yet, .40 or 10mm or even .45) subguns, and riflemen should be carrying A2's.

All in all, I still think the M16A2/A3/A4 (20") is probably the best all-around rifle in world service today, especially in FA or burst mode and/or at longer ranges.

CJ
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:38:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2003 5:39:09 PM EDT by HeavyMetal]
That article is a buffet of errors, It looks like it was written by a 10th grader. Actually, it looks like a textbook example of lazy journalism.

I would not give any creedance to it at all.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:40:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
That article is a buffet of errors, It looks like it was written by a 10th grader. Actually, it looks like a textbook example of lazy journalism.

I would not give any creedance to it at all.



100% correct ^

Jesus - I was clenching my jaw the entire time I was reading it. Too many errors and non-qualified statements for me to even start to pick this piece apart.

Too bad this is now the *standard* for American journalism....


"The current version of the M-16 is a far cry from the original - which was SELF CLEANING..." BWAHAHA!!!
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 8:01:13 PM EDT

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.


I don't recall that they thought it had range or accuracy problems back then...

Link Posted: 11/22/2003 9:14:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Agrippa:

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.



From the pics I've seen of the OICW, its a bullpup, so theoretically it is more maneuverable. But still, that thing looks huge, and 10 times as bulky as any M-16. It's like a stockless m4 with a huge 20 mm launcher attatched to it. If they are having a hard time with M16's, they will really have trouble with the OICW's.
Maybe they could use Galil type weapons, or a short barreled Yugo M-70 type rifle- something that fires the .308 (more accurate than 7.62x 39), but that isn't quite as large as the M-70, or as short as a Krinkov- sort of like an AK equivalent of the M-4 configuration.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 9:24:12 PM EDT
is'nt it obvious? use the Hungarian AMD-65 !!!! with a shortened barrel and folding stock it will kick heinie! But I do recommend using it in the 5.45mm comfiguration.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 9:35:06 PM EDT
Yeah... AMD-65 would make some sense, but lets face it- the US will never adopt a Kalashnikov as its main assault weapon. Its always been seen as the "enemy's weapon"- so using one would imply more equality on the battlefield, even though there really isn't. And plus, the reaserch is going in a completely different direction, they aren't looking to imporve existing designs but to create a completely new system.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 9:36:58 PM EDT
WTFE
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 3:59:07 AM EDT
It is a difficult read, and inaccurate, but I should have specified my question, too. Won't this type of stuff leave another falsehood in the minds of the common people (i.e. sheeple), one that is in favor of the AK, and not the M-16? As far as they know, it is the truth.

They mention the OICW, but have nothing about the XM8. I thought that was going to be the interim weapon till they can make a lighter OICW.


Link Posted: 11/23/2003 4:41:47 AM EDT
Hehehe;

H&K is building a plant just outside of Ft. Benning (Ft Benning gave up some acreage for the plant)-so It looks as though the M16 series will be going bye-bye hehehe. But I do think the SIG 550 should have won the Army trials it is/was a much better system.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 4:51:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 6:03:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/23/2003 6:13:17 AM EDT by Blastech]
Now, I know what some of you people think about Soldier of Fortune...
But they had a article in a few issues ago that stated that the DoD sent a fact finder mission over to Iraq/Afghan. to see in the field of combat "what works and what dosnt" in Uncle Sugars arsenal.
Conclusion? M16 series of rifles failed to get the job done as far as the M4 goes. Unreliable and multiple shots needed including one to the head to keep the perps out of the fight and down for good. The 5.56 just isnt knocking them down like it should. The 20" model ..Unreliable and too long. Multiple shots needed also but not as bad as the M4. Still some ammo issues though. Both weapons are not ment to be in such a harsh enviro. They need way too much cleaning to keep the operational.
As far as false information goes here, I have used all 3 weapons mentioned in this article in the military (M4,M16A2, AK47 +74 weapons) and I tell you what... I have seen this comming for some time now. I still love the M16 series of rifles but they need to be given back to the Air Force and used on fixed posts and by the LEO's only! They are not ment to get dirty.
I have done OPFOR more than a few times and we friggin abused those AKMs like there was no tomarrow. Hell, we never cleaned them at all until we turned them in to the Arsenal at the conclusion of the excersize. They had well over 2,000 rounds of dirty ass blanks fired through them by each of us.

..Dont flame the messenger. Listen to the message.

Tim
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 6:06:39 AM EDT
What'd be wrong with this?





Nothing, that's what!



I definitely do NOT want our services to switch to ANYTHING that's not DESIGNED by Americans, MADE by Americans, IN America, by a company that IS American.

Quite frankly, I'd prefer that we stick with the M16 family over ANY existing contender.


CJ
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 6:25:43 AM EDT
Nothings wrong with that weapon ... IF you are in a building room clearing.

You cant be close-minded my friend. I would prefer a AK74 any day over the M16 series in the field when my life is at stake and reliability is a importiant major factor. I dont give a flying fuk where its made or what it says on the side when I pull the trigger as long as that baby bucks everytime.

I also prefer a weapon to be made in the US also... But the label and country of origin are NOT going to save my life
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 6:47:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CAMPYBOB:
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.

i see no error in that statement.

and if it's 'short' they want...let's see the ar get as short as a krink.




How about the first eight words for starters? The M16A1 was type classified in 1967. Thats just one of many errors in the whole article.

The boy did not do his homework and I haven't time to do it for him as I have to finish a powerpoint presentation.

Link Posted: 11/23/2003 7:44:33 AM EDT
I actually pefer the M16 over the AK in any setting except maybe the desert. While the AK still jams in the desert, just not as much as the M16.But other
than the desert the M16 all the way.Its just what I prefer and whats works best for me. I prefer the standard lenght 20" rifle A1 or A2 doesn't matter to me. I really like the A1 better for weight savings.I don't care for the M4's but do see the reason for them being used.Got to talk to a SOG Sgt. last summer and he was getting ready for going to Afgan duty to swap out the SOG's over there. I asked him about his issued M4 and did he like it and was they haveing any problem with them. He said other than a bullet redesign to make it fragnate or tumble more reliable so its not speed sensitive for that to happen, he love it.I asked if they could carry different weapons and he said they could. But they like to set up so they can use anothers mags or rounds if a soldiers goes down and it is needed.I also asked about the AK's and the reply was we have access to them and once in awhile will take them out but normally we stick to our M4's, with optics. We can make longer shots more accurately than if we carried the AK's. We really don't like being up close to the bad guys with our groups being so small.Like to keep them on our ground and on our terms when inguagement takes place.This guy was a weapons sgt for there platoon or company, ( can't remember.) He and my cousin served together in a SOG unit in Alabama . Which group I can't remember.Just passing a conversation along that I had with this guy.Take it for what you want. WarDawg
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 7:44:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Blastech:
Now, I know what some of you people think about Soldier of Fortune...
But they had a article in a few issues ago that stated that the DoD sent a fact finder mission over to Iraq/Afghan. to see in the field of combat "what works and what dosnt" in Uncle Sugars arsenal.
Conclusion? M16 series of rifles failed to get the job done as far as the M4 goes. Unreliable and multiple shots needed including one to the head to keep the perps out of the fight and down for good. The 5.56 just isnt knocking them down like it should. The 20" model ..Unreliable and too long. Multiple shots needed also but not as bad as the M4. Still some ammo issues though. Both weapons are not ment to be in such a harsh enviro. They need way too much cleaning to keep the operational.
As far as false information goes here, I have used all 3 weapons mentioned in this article in the military (M4,M16A2, AK47 +74 weapons) and I tell you what... I have seen this comming for some time now. I still love the M16 series of rifles but they need to be given back to the Air Force and used on fixed posts and by the LEO's only! They are not ment to get dirty.
I have done OPFOR more than a few times and we friggin abused those AKMs like there was no tomarrow. Hell, we never cleaned them at all until we turned them in to the Arsenal at the conclusion of the excersize. They had well over 2,000 rounds of dirty ass blanks fired through them by each of us.

..Dont flame the messenger. Listen to the message.

Tim



That afghan article discused the stopping power issue. No mention were made of reliability problems.

They also recently published a poll in SOF that said that 90% of the soldiers who used the M-4 was satisfied with it. That says it all.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 8:07:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 10:44:49 AM EDT
How about this?

Nothing else for that matter is as reliable as the AK-47 or its younger cousin, the AK-74.

The M-16 is more reliable than many other weapons systems and reliable enough to get the job done.

The M-16 series is the most ergonomic series of weapons.


Reliability isn't everything or we would still be using spears. Always loaded and never jams.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 1:58:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
Reliability isn't everything or we would still be using spears. Always loaded and never jams.



Hence the reason even the AK has a bayonet lug.....
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 3:05:58 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 3:26:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/23/2003 3:33:37 PM EDT by AW4EVER]
Well I've got 5 ARs and 4 AKs. When it comes down to grabbing one to save my ass it will be the AMD65. Functions 100% of the time, no matter what. That is after thousands of rounds, and very little cleaning.
Don't get me wrong I love the ARs too, they just wouldn't be my first choice
Now if you want a real kickass weapon modify an AMD65 to shoot the 5.56 round and use the M16 mag.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 6:44:34 PM EDT
I think this also goes to another post I saw on here about calibers. I know that NATO and mostly Geneva have a lot to do with the caliber issue. I know the Brits were working on a fletchet style weapon because some thought that even the 5.56 was still to destructive.

After the troops got the weapon for testing, they said NO WAY. Bottom line - in an attempt to not do as much damage to the enemy, the troops using the weapons were more susceptible to die because the fletchets weren't lethal enough to put the enemy down without expending great amounts of ammo. The humane way was going to create even more casualties.

I believe I saw KAC has released a new 7.62x39 version of the M4 that is supposedly being tested in the STAN. Maybe a good start?

Link Posted: 11/23/2003 7:12:48 PM EDT
The very idea of "less lethal" ammunition for military applications is absolutely ludicrous.

In a war situation, you need to eliminate the enemy combatants, and you don't do it by trying to tickle them into submission. You shoot them and you use ammo that's quite sufficient to remove the enemy combatant from the picture. Whether he goes to a field hospital or a grave, either is sufficient, but if he goes to a hospital, he uses up more of the enemy's manpower.

Every sensible person knows this.

CJ
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 4:36:16 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 8:31:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CAMPYBOB:
I believe I saw KAC has released a new 7.62x39 version of the M4 that is supposedly being tested in the STAN. Maybe a good start?

reed knight built 6 prototypes of the ak/ar.

none of them ever left the united states.



Thanks for the info Campy. I had heard this as a rumor only, but I like the concept though. Since the majority of the "deadly" places we are stationed uses the AK and the 7.62 round, I would think that an acurate weapon using the same round as our enemy would be an advantage. But then, the reverse could be true too if they got their hands on our supply...


Link Posted: 11/24/2003 9:33:56 AM EDT
Quote:
I definitely do NOT want our services to switch to ANYTHING that's not DESIGNED by Americans, MADE by Americans, IN America, by a company that IS American.

Lets look at the Service rifles the U.S. Army used in the 20th Century and who designed them:

30-40 Krag: slightly modified version of the Danish 1892 Krag-Jorgensen infantry rifle

1903 Springfield: based on the Mauser 1898 design.

M1 Garand: Designed by John Garand, a Canadian.

M14: Improved Garand Design.

M16: Based on a design by Eugene Stoner, an American.

As one can see, a majority of our most historic Battle Rifles were not "American" in design.

A switch to a modified Galil, or similar AK based weapon would be good...... Especially for the troops "over there".
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 10:19:40 AM EDT
I have a few AR15's and one AK74 type, these are all for the pure enjoyment of shooting. I live in the Sonoran desert (Arizona) and have had my AR15 come out brown from dust and dirt, Have fired 500 rounds from field positions in the dirt between cleanings with little if any failures and nothing that could no be corrected with a yank on the charge handle. Have not had a chance to test the AK like this yet. My AR15 is a pre-ban Colt Sporter lightweight, all original except for a surefire millenium light/handgaurd.

What the hell are the GI's cleaning/lubing their M16's with anyway? I clean with Butch's, MPrpo7, whatever is available, patch the bore dry and leave it dry, then lube the gas rings and bolt carrier sparingly with surplus LSA lube. A full cleanup (to make the rifle look like new) after a serious deset shoot takes a couple hours of scrubbing, but 20 minutes will make the rifle clean where it need to be. It must be really dirty over in "the sandbox". Combined with the Summer heat that place has to be damned miserable!

It seem to me that after nearly 40 years the US would have a couple optimum ammo choices for the M16/M4. The way I read it they still have not got the right ammo for our men at war.

This doesn't seem to mesh with the story line here, but this is MY story (and I'm sticking with it)
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 5:56:39 PM EDT
That sure is an interesting article.
Funny I dont remember my M4 being a full auto. Hell I just got through packing it for a few months.

Link Posted: 11/25/2003 5:43:18 AM EDT
Check this link out - mainly closer to the bottom of the page concerning the actual weapons info - interesting information.

A 5.56 X 45mm "Timeline"

Top Top