M-16 Rifle May Be on Way Out of U.S. Army - It don't work. Looks pretty

[NNN0LHI]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_goodbye_m_16&cid=540&ncid=1480

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.

more

[Frederic Bastiat]

1. M-4's jam just as much if not more than the M-16A2

I agree on the size issue though.

[madrchsod]

2. maybe they can

buy some of the new russian rifles-two discharges in one trigger pull. russians can`t find any buyers bacause ak-47s are dirt cheap in the second and third world. i guess there`s going to be alot of m-16 on the market soon..

[lazarus]

3. An honest question

Why don't we go for the AK-47? It seems to work in every environment, it's cheap, dependable, and efficient. Everyone else uses them, why don't we?

[democracyindanger]

4. A simple answer

They aren't made by a US company. And the windfall for a contract to design a new standard rifle would be huge.

In the end, it'll probably be like the old story about a writing utencil for outer space. NASA spent millions of dollars to develop a pen that could write in zero-G. The USSR used a pencil.

[IndianaGreen]

16. We could buy the Israeli variant of the Ak-47, the Galil (5.56 mm)

Galil SAR

Israel - Impressed with the reliability of their Arab enemies' Kalashnikov rifles in contrast to their issue FALs and other Western designs, the IDF set about creating an improved clone. IMI's Israeli Galili and Yaacov Lior combined Valmet M62 receivers, Colt barrel blanks, FAL folding stocks, and a modified Stoner 63 rifle magazine to create the Galil. The 5.56mm Galil has been used by the Netherlands (MN1), Sweden (FFV 890C), and South Africa (R4). The Columbian Army uses the 7.62x51mm NATO Galil:


Galil ARM

http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/models/ka280.html

[hlthe2b]

6. yes, even little children in Africa can use them...

so its simplicity will be helpful, when we reinstate the draft. :mad:

[NickB79]

17. Not up to the M-16 accuracy-wise

The AK-47 works so reliably because it is built to looser tolerances than the M-16. This built-in sloppiness is what allows the gun to fire even when filled with sand, dust or mud, but also contributes to a drop in accuracy at longer ranges.

[ET Awful]

5. As an ex-soldier, I can state as a fact . . .

That it ain't just Iraq that proves the problems with the M-16. The rifle has always been a piece of crap.

It jams easily, it's unreliable, smaller parts aren't interchangeable between weapons (i.e. if you have a problem, you can't take a bolt from one rifle and put it in another).

Take a Kalishnikov or Galeil designed weapon, which uses simplistic parts that are interchangeable between weapons and much more reliable in all conditions, and you have a much better choice.

If you want a good clue, a good portion of the M-16's used by the military are made by Mattel (or at least they were in 1994). Yup, the same people that make Barbie dolls make M-16s.

[BrotherBuzz]

9. Urban Myth! (well, military myth)

If you want a good clue, a good portion of the M-16's used by the military are made by Mattel (or at least they were in 1994). Yup, the same people that make Barbie dolls make M-16s.

All the M16A1's I saw were made by Colt, but the common myth was that Mattel made the stocks and foregrips during the late 60's because of their vast knowledge of plastics and plastic injection. Either way, these stories didn't do much to boost morale of soldiers using the M16 (now, if they molded the foregrip in the shape of Barbie...).

[Nlighten1]

14. I liked the A2's myself.

I joined the Army when the A1's were still in use and when we got the A2's my accuracy increased dramatically. I could hit 40 for 40 on the rifle ranges with the A2 but it would have been a cold day in hell with an A1

[HairyPoppins]

7. MP5s or UZIs are the choice of most Special Forces

First they soften the enemy up with a MK19 and then move in...

[NickB79]

13. Won't penetrate body armor

And 9mm sucks past 50 yds anyways accuracy and energy-wise. I haven't read of many Special Forces using MP5's commonly, much less Uzi's. Their preferred weapon seems to be the M-4 carbine, as seen in Afghanistan. Only in close-in situations, or domestic situations (SWAT teams, for example) are MP5's commonly encountered.

[Bombtrack]

8. I believe that the OICW will be the replacement

http://www.hkpro.com/oicw.htm

[NickB79]

11. Man, I hope not!

At 20 lbs fully loaded (over twice the weight of the M-16) and running $10,000+ per gun, no way we could arm even a fraction of our forces with them.

[Wonk]

19. Agreed. Too expensive, too big, and too complex for standard issue.

What's called for is something more compact and ultra-reliable.

A bullpup design would help with the size issue.

Maybe something like this Steyr AUG would be in order:


I'm not sure how good it is in the reliability department when it comes to sandstorms, etc, and it has some issues with things like the magazine release.

It can accomodate different barrels depending on what's required.
(the top one has a bipod)


It can also handle a grenade launcher when appropriate.


On edit: and make sure whoever gets the contract to design and build them isn't connected to the BFEE.

[Nlighten1]

12. Hmmm

That thing looks totally unhumpable. Although the specs are impressive I have a feeling it will be unwieldy in the field. Can you imagine what it would be like competing for your EIB trying to strip that down, reassemble it and do a function check?

[NNN0LHI]

15. Its pretty too. But will it shoot in a sandstorm? That is the question n/t

[Norm357]

10. This article is misleading

The M4 is just a shortened M16 with a collapsable stock. They have the same action and parts are interchangable.

Norm

[NNN0LHI]

18. I think that is one of the problems the article brings up.

Accessibility in and out of vehicles is that one problem. The shorter M-4 would help with that.

Don

[NickB79]

20. Special Forces in Afghanistan haven't been too happy with the M-4s either

The M-4 is simply the M-16 action with a shorter barrel and collapsible stock. Lighter and easier to carry, but the shorter barrel also means the bullet isn't travelling as fast (longer barrels usually give higher velocity). The 5.56 round has already been called marginal due to the bullet's light weight; only the high velocity is what makes it so deadly. You reduce the velocity and you reduce its effectiveness and range. Secondly, the current military round, a 62-gr steel-core bullet, doesn't fragment much, especially at the slower velocity from the short M-4 barrel. Many reports have come back from Afghanistan where soldiers have complained that the bullets are simply pencilling through enemies, not doing enough damage to immediately stop them.

[Nederland]

21. How about the Steyr AUG?

Another bullpup design that is a lot shorter than the M16. Being considered by Australian troops as an alternative to the M16, and used by Navy Seals too.

[Wonk]

22. GMTA? We posted at almost the same time. See post #19. (nt)

[leanings]

24. There's nothing wrong with the M-16.

The length issue might be pertinent, yeah. The 16 was designed as a general issue rifle, not as a rifle for solely vehicle mounted troops. The extra length improves accuracy.

The big problem with the 16 is the cartridge, and what it was designed to handle. The 5.56 SS-109 is excellent at penetrating body armor and expanding inside of big fat Russians. Today it's being used on unarmored, skinny Arabs. It pokes right thru them like an icepick.

[Nlighten1]

25. I love the M16A2

I never had a problem humping with it, or dismounting the APC...Bradley...or what ever.

[ajacobson]

23. dupe msg

on edit: repeated question about AK-47, didn't see it, sorry

[TacticalPeek]

26. For riding around in jeeps in towns and cities,

this used to work pretty good at similar relatively close-in application. Guess you'd need to fold the stock or something.




;)