Yeager has a similar report that is more indepth that I have seen. The molle gear brought forth a lot of complaints, particularly that if you go prone it is difficult between the molle gear and helment to be able to be able to see clearly to fire.

Why would mechanized units get m16s? Because only the Army gets m4s?

Mechanized units get M16s because they generally get 2nd-hand shoulder weapons, since their primary weapons are their vehicle-mounted weapons (primarily belt-fed machineguns).  As M4s have replaced the M16A2 in front-line units, they get moved to mechanized units to replace old crap like the M3 Greasegun.

What SHOULD have happened is that the bulk of the infantry should have been given M16A4s, while Airborne/Air Assault units and mechanized units should have the M4s.  But no one asked me.

-Troy

There's nothing wrong with the weapon design (okay, that's a lie; the bipod and drum attachment SUCK).  The problem is that a lot of the SAWs are really old (long past their rated lifecycle) and worn out, and while *some* units expend a lot of effort into keeping their weapons properly maintained (meaning: worn/damaged parts replaced before they fail, etc.), other units, even infantry units, just don't push very hard, and often end up with an armory full of broken guns.

In many cases, this is a concious political decision, to push for new guns instead of repairing the existing ones.  Anyway, a lot goes on behind the scenes, and if you don't know about it, you can easily jump to the wrong conclusions.

-Troy