Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

M-16 Rifle May Be on Way Out of U.S. Army
AP, Yahoo! ^ | 11-22-03 | Slobodan Lekic

Posted on 11/22/2003 1:50:36 PM PST by Ex-Dem

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 (news - web sites).

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.

TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; infantrylist; m16; m4; oicw; willieandjoeslist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-175 next last
To: Thane_Banquo
Bring back the M14!

I entered the US Army in 1969.

At the time the M-14 was still in the inventory and I trained with it at Ft. Campbell and qualified with it during Infantry AIT at Fort Polk.

I didn't see an M-16 until I got to VN, to the Americal Division, and that was in the hands of a Navy guy.

I carried an M-14 for most of my tour and when I left the Americal to go down south, I "willed" it to a friend, who I found out later, willed it to a friend, who, unfortunately, was KIA and the weapon was damaged beyond repair.

It was a heavy bastard, but it out-shot everthing else any one had, except for the pig.

And since the pig and my 14 used the same ammo, we stayed close to one another.

The only other weapon that could reach out and touch Charlie the same way my 14 could, was in the hands of the snipers and they wouldn't part with one of them for nothing.

I am convinced that the only reason my 14 and my old slabside .45 never jammed was because the tolerances were so much. 'Cause God knows I never had the chance to clean either one of them in the manner and with the frequency the book recommends.

In between cleanings, I just poured the CLP on and hoped for the best.

Must of worked, 'cause here I am.

21 posted on 11/22/2003 2:25:21 PM PST by OldSmaj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ex-Dem

This will definitely be an improvement from those bulky m-16s.

22 posted on 11/22/2003 2:26:22 PM PST by chudogg (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ex-Dem
Why would someone assume that the U.S. armed forces are not going to see real battlefield engagements going forward? Just because we are now primarily engaging in urban warfare, in which we are primarily responding to attacks, this will not always be the case.

M-4s, properly lubed, should get us through near-term CQB situations. As far as a "next generation" replacement, the OICW seems to be far from perfect. It is heavy, bulky, and armed with a 10" barrel firing 5.56mm that will greatly reduce range, accuracy and terminal ballistic performance. The OICW's 20mm top-exploding projectile has yet to prove its utility, particularly in urban CQB.

23 posted on 11/22/2003 2:28:16 PM PST by BushMeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ex-Dem
Ok guys, lets have a pic of both, so we not so "all-into-guns" will have a idea what the difference are between all of these. THANKS
24 posted on 11/22/2003 2:28:27 PM PST by Phyto Chems
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ex-Dem
i've fired several hundred rounds from an AR-15 and a few thousand rounds from my own SKS' and an Mk-90 and prefer the SKS hands down.(7.62>5.56)
25 posted on 11/22/2003 2:29:28 PM PST by gdc61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elmer fudd
There's a 6.5mm cartridge in the works (overall length not more than the 5.56mm cartridge, but made from a shortened 7.62 case, fires a 100-grain bullet with a long ogive)that, if reports can be believed, is the answer to these problems. Watch for it in the future (might not be adopted by the U.S. military, but civilians are taking to it....)
26 posted on 11/22/2003 2:31:27 PM PST by Renfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Phyto Chems
I'll try to find some pics (probably someone else will manage to do it before I do), in the meantime, check out this site:
27 posted on 11/22/2003 2:33:18 PM PST by Ex-Dem (not just another brick in the wall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ex-Dem
I never had any great complaints with the M16A2. It was like a light deer rifle.
28 posted on 11/22/2003 2:33:49 PM PST by Prodigal Son ("Fundamentalist Left". It's a great meme. Spread it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ex-Dem

Still looks like the M-16.P

Hudson: Let's just bug out and call it even, OK?
Ripley: I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. That's the only way to be sure.

29 posted on 11/22/2003 2:34:30 PM PST by SAMWolf (You might have mail, I can't recall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
Sure, blame it on the reporter.
30 posted on 11/22/2003 2:34:31 PM PST by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig (I'm a girl watcher, I'm a girl watcher. Here comes one now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ex-Dem

M-4 carbine

Objective Individual Combat Weapon




M1 Garand
31 posted on 11/22/2003 2:35:12 PM PST by Walkin Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeLawyer
AP needs to get their shit togeather.....either the Army has assult rifles or citizens in the CONUS have assult rifles.......:o)

My HBAR is havin an identity crisis !

One has to wonder if the new HK factory in the US and SIG's new 1911A1 Clone (granite series) has something to do with over the horizon contracts.........

Stay Safe !

32 posted on 11/22/2003 2:36:51 PM PST by Squantos (Support Mental Health !........or........ I"LL KILL YOU !!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
The Garand is fun & easy to shoot, but it's a pain to strip and reassamble. I can strip and reassemble a Kalashnikov blindfolded (or, at least I could when I had one.)
33 posted on 11/22/2003 2:37:13 PM PST by Renfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Phyto Chems
Here's a side by side comparison.

34 posted on 11/22/2003 2:37:28 PM PST by Ex-Dem (not just another brick in the wall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ex-Dem
i would match my hk91 against any battle rifle.
35 posted on 11/22/2003 2:37:55 PM PST by SCARED
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SAMWolf; archy
:-) Loved that movie. I know caseless rounds have been experimented with before. Does anyone know if that is still a good idea? I think it would be less weight and bulk for the infantryman.
36 posted on 11/22/2003 2:38:37 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Walkin Man
I'd give the HK G36, which is apparently far more reliable than the M-16A2, a tryout before giving up on the 5.56mm cartridge.

The main reason for moving away from the larger cartridges to the 5.56mm is that a soldier can carry roughly twice as many of the smaller cartridges for the same weight. This, along with the realization that most combat engagements took place within 200 yards (thus making the superior long-range performance of heavier bullets unnecessary), were the main reasons for adoption of the M-16.

The AKs are more reliable functionally, but are less accurate and have less impressive terminal ballistics, despite claims of "knockdown power".

37 posted on 11/22/2003 2:42:02 PM PST by BushMeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
I was in the Artic Circle after a jump in Kotzebue. A chinook helicopter hovered near us for just a moment, when the snow settled my M-16 was completly frozen. The exhaust had melted the snow mist and at -30 zero it only took seconds for the moisture to freeze up on the rifle.

From my experience in the artic, firearms need to be as simply as possible. Bolt action, with good iron sights. Sounds like the desert conditions are just as harsh on the m-16 as the artic. keep It Simple Stupid.
38 posted on 11/22/2003 2:42:15 PM PST by duk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ex-Dem
Barring the return of the M14, in Tanker config., how about also switching to a War-fighting military sidearm, like the 1911, or a good D.A., like Sig, but in 10mm...and a handy little 10mm Thompson...which would also make a dandy machine-pistol, for those special occasions. REAL handy, IMHO.

Bullpup nice too, as long as it shoots something worth shooting, not necessarily a zillion rounds of short barrel-impeded woodchuck we "wound" instead of obliterate, or blow chunks off of whatever they're taking cover we did in the wars we've won so conspicuously. Ignore the college-bred geniuses and politicians, and go back to what worked...hopefully with 21st. century improvements.

39 posted on 11/22/2003 2:42:22 PM PST by PoorMuttly (DO, or DO NOT. There is no TRY - Yoda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phyto Chems
The top one's the M-4, the bottom one is the M-16. The stock on the M-4 is the dead giveaway.
40 posted on 11/22/2003 2:43:38 PM PST by Ex-Dem (not just another brick in the wall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-175 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson