It’s not the weapons that have put our soldiers at risk. It is the rules of engagement.
Nope. The M-4 is a durable and capable weapon. Not my favorite by any stretch but it does the job. The issue with it is that the tolerances are tight and not as forgiving as the AK so it fowled quite often and required constant cleaning. IMHO the M14 should have stayed as the infantry weapon of choice. After that, the FN SCAR.
I remember responding as QRF as a MP 1st LT holding my Beretta M9 and a small paint brush ...cleaning my weapon as responded from sand...hated that sidearm...the Glockm faired better once I went back to Iraq with Blackwater...and saw the SF using 1911 and M14’s with great success...that is what is needed...great weapons and firepower...not col looking gadgets or “lowest bidder” small caliber types...
In jungle fighting against 90lb viet cong the 5.56/.223 is serviceable. Against 200lb sand people hiding in solid buildings and in stout vehicles, we must go back to 7.62/.308 or greater power. M14/AR10/FNFAL. These should be the minimum.
M4 size and caliber weapons in close quarter house to house fighting in the hands of a select few, could serve the purpose of a Thompson in the hands of a squad leader of WW 2 boots on the ground.
The short answer is: No, it is not the same crappy weapon we sent to Vietnam.
We can still argue about whether .223 / 5.56mm is the best round for use in combat or whether a heavier cartridge would be better, but the reliability and QA/QC problems of that weapons system have been addressed and it is a reliable and sound firearm.
I once had the great privilege of sharing an Albany,GA bar with a multi tour combat marine vet of the sandbox. His combat experiences have been featured on the history channel in their combat 360 series. He wasnt an ordinary marine, he was attached to a spec ops group for most of his combat tours. He spent time in both Iraq at the Syrian border and Afghanistan.
His name was Bodette.
Being a former USN gunners mate...and a lifetime firearms enthusiast...I asked his opinion of the colt battle rifle platform....thinking I would hear of it’s fragility in the sandbox amongst other shortcomings I had heard about from Vietnam vets.
Suprisingly...He told me for him...and he had several platforms he could of used other than the m-16/m-4...that the colt battle rifle was his favorite.
I asked why? Wasn’t it high maintenance? Wasn’t the 5.56 a weak round for the distance of engagements in Afghanistan?
He said he liked the smoothness and accuracy it delivered which enabled him to put more rounds on target quicker than his enemy could....especially at distances over 200 yards. He said this was the reason he survived his tours.
I wasnt a big fan...till I met him.
The AR-15 is an excellent weapon there are so many vendors out there selling their version of them that the improvements have been astonishing. I have a Colt that was mad in 1978 and it’s OK as far as it goes. I have built better weapons from parts obtained from various manufacturers beginning with the lower receiver at a total cost of around $500.
Start here....if you dare.
https://www.vbd.com//noc/shop/products_detail.asp?CategoryID=29&ProductID=122
No, and it wasn't crappy in 'Nam either. A lot of the criticisms for its performance in Vietnam had to do with using the incorrect powder in the cartridges, and also neglecting to teach the grunts to clean their rifles regularly (pencil pushers at the Pentagon foolishly thought it never needed to be cleaned). Also, the addition of the forward assist on the A1 helped.
Today it is a great assault rifle. Most criticisms of the AR-15 platform are due to the fact that it cannot reliably function in sustained full auto for long periods of time (i.e. several hundred rounds) without jamming. No kidding it can't. It's rifle, not a light machine gun. It isn't made to fire in sustained full auto. The AR-15 is designed to be shot primarily in semi-auto with full auto only intermittently. It is designed this way because of the predominant US combat philosophy since after WWII.
I once had the great privilege of sharing an Albany,GA bar with a multi tour combat marine vet of the sandbox. His combat experiences have been featured on the history channel in their combat 360 series. He wasnt an ordinary marine, he was attached to a spec ops group for most of his combat tours. He spent time in both Iraq at the Syrian border and Afghanistan.
His name was Bodette.
Being a former USN gunners mate...and a lifetime firearms enthusiast...I asked his opinion of the colt battle rifle platform....thinking I would hear of it’s fragility in the sandbox amongst other shortcomings I had heard about from Vietnam vets.
Suprisingly...He told me for him...and he had several platforms he could of used other than the m-16/m-4...that the colt battle rifle was his favorite.
I asked why? Wasn’t it high maintenance? Wasn’t the 5.56 a weak round for the distance of engagements in Afghanistan?
He said he liked the smoothness and accuracy it delivered which enabled him to put more rounds on target quicker than his enemy could....especially at distances over 200 yards. He said this was the reason he survived his tours.
I wasnt a big fan...till I met him.
The problem with the M16 was that the rifle was tested with spherical gun powder. The government bean-counters decided that cylindrical gun powder could be used. That powder caused the rifle to become fouled. This left alot of troops on the battlefield with no weapon.
There’s nothing wrong with the weapon. When property maintained it will do the job. If there is a problem it’s the crappy bullet. The 62 grain steel core is fine for punching holes in things, especially thin skinned vehicles and the like.
But it sucks at putting bad guys down. A soft point design of the same weight would do a much better job IMO. I use the FMJ and green tip stuff for practice. But for social work my magazines are full of Sierra Game King Spitzers.
L
Yup, the M-4,M-16 suck so bad that all the people that have been killed with one need to get up and go about their business.
the author: Major General ROBERT H. SCALES, JR., Retired 30 November 2000,
United States Military Academy- BS Degree - No Major
Feb 96 Jul 97 Deputy Chief of Staff for Doctrine, United States Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia
Jul 97 Aug 00 Commandant, United States Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania
The author seems to suggest the 6.8 SPC.
Today’s military faces a more daunting threat.
Rules of Engagement which transform war fighting into self-defense constraints more severe than those imposed on civilians at home.
As for the cost of aircraft, we need the politics out of the design requirements process, and a funding profile that allows for an orderly development and test process, leading to production in economic order quantities.
Beretta ARX-160.
5.56. Chrome lined 1:7 twist. Completely ambidextrous including shell ejection. Quick barrel change. Can swap barrels to accommodate 7.62x39mm. Piston system.
Civilian version is the ARX-100:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHwJUt8YQUo
One of my ancestors saved up his meager pay and bought a Spencer to be his weapon on Sherman’s march to the sea. His entire unit did the same and it came in handy on one occasion in particular.
Beretta ARX-160.
5.56. Chrome lined 1:7 twist. Completely ambidextrous including shell ejection. Quick barrel change. Can swap barrels to accommodate 7.62x39mm. Piston system.
Civilian version is the ARX-100:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHwJUt8YQUo
Sir, This is truly one of those debates without end. It’s like arguing over the merits of a 63 Corvette and a 2014 model. Yes, I would rather have the 63 but the 2014 is a far superior automobile.
I usually agree with anything Gen Scales writes but I must disagree with this article.
I’ve spent many years carrying the M16 and M4 carbine. I enlisted in 1974 and retired in 2008. Upon retirement, I was asked to go with the Marine Brigade into Afghanistan and spent the next four years as the Training Advisor to the Commanding General, Regional Command South West.
The M16 I carried in 1974 is NOT the M16A4 carried today as the Service Rifle for the USMC. As the Division Gunner, Infantry Weapons Officer, 2nd Marine Division, my job was to advise the Commanding General on training and employment of Infantry Weapons. I can say with complete confidence; I have not seen a single report of a M16A4 Service Rifle failure in Combat! Nor is there ANY evidence that the 5.56 does not meet the requirements of the Ground Combat Forces.
Weapons Systems are replaced when and if deficiencies are uncovered or a superior system capability is developed and a need identified.
Although much talk, amongst gun enthusiast, indicate that the 5.56 does not meet the capabilities required by the Combat Ground Forces, I have seen no evidence this is true. I’m not saying that a larger caliber projectile would not surpass the wounding/killing capability of the 5.56. What I am saying is that neither the US Army or the Marines show any data that indicates the 5.56 is not meeting the requirements of the Ground Combat Element.
There is absolutely no comparison in the M16A4/M4 and the AK series weapons. I’ve spent six years training Iraqi and Afghan Soldiers, armed with all variations of the AK systems. I’ve never met a single Iraqi Solder, Afghan Soldier and certainty no American who would give up their M16A4/M4 for a AK series weapon. Anyone who says they would prefer an AK over the M16A4 has never participated in a comparison shoot-off on a live fire range. My Marines would do this demonstration routinely and the results were laughable. The only area that an AK could even compete is reliability. Yes, the AK is very reliable but no more so than the M16A4.
Ok guys; my 2 Cents!
Terry L Walker
Marine Gunner
CWO5
USMC Retired