1) Someone sould check the date of that report - it sounds like about the tenth iteration of 'reports' that started about 1965 to my recollection.
That being about the time they decided to replace the M-14 with a rifle the Air Force had selected before them - electing powder jams over potential for rust.
Same time a Colt representative told me the .223 was better because it tumbled!
2) Seems to me that when "the Army" does a study they could find a few participants who had actually USED the weapons they were studying.
3) The "Marines picked up AK-47 and used them in the field" is also a recycled truism from the 'advisor' days prior to 1965.
4) On another note - did I not note somewhere that all or most Special Ops units are armed with the (obsolete/anequated/not european enough) .45 ACP rather than the 'wounds are better than kills' 9MM?
1) There have been a number of studies by the Army and USMC since the beginning of the Afghanistan campaign and through the current Iraq campaign that are all coming to the same conclusion - and yes, it's the same result that we saw in Vietnam.
FYI, the original as-designed M-16 and ammo combo *didn't* jam. The government changed the ammo spec afterwards and then created the jam-o-matic. The AR-15 jams for other reasons too, but I thought I'd mention the reason for the powder jams.
2) The actual reports do name various personnel (by rank, not name) that submitted statements.
3) They're still doing it. Same thing happens when Marines go into the field with the M16A3 and later variants - the 3 round burst limiter gets "combat lossed".
4) Most of them with a choice *are* using a 1911 variant. The only reason we have a 9mm sidearm is because of the NATO treaty obligations (and because first we forced 7.62mm on them, then forced 5.56mm on them, so the Europeans returned the favor with the 9mm.)