M-16 Rifle May Be on Way Out of U.S. Army ...Duh

[Seraphim]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=4&u=/ap/20031122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_goodbye_m_16


By SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Writer

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 ****e 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.

[BMF]

this is partly why the M8 has been bumped up to the top of the heap for army R/D.

[ST4]

With the M-4's length, I dont see why conventional forces aren't using it.

[StarvingStudent47]

There are many problems with the M-16, but I doubt you'll find a single NATO soldier who would rather use an AK-74. Note that this article never mentions the M-8 or OICW or anything like that. Instead, it implies that the US military will be switching over to Kalashnikovs (and not even the latest model Kalashnikovs): rofl


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.

I don't like to assume bias from an author's name, but when a guy named "Slobodan Lekic" implies that the United States military will adopt Kalashnikov rifles, I don't have much choice. I can only conclude that this is a poorly-disguised East v West p---ing match ;)

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Ak-47's and Ak-74's dont require much effort as far as cleaning goes. They can take quite the beating though.

[BMF]

doesnt mention the OICW?

"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. "

the M4 isnt meant to be a mainstay rifle. the shorter barrel causes problems with range/stopping power. the M8 supposedly overcomes this somehow.

[Gordon]

There are many problems with the M-16, but I doubt you'll find a single NATO soldier who would rather use an AK-74. Note that this article never mentions the M-8 or OICW or anything like that. Instead, it implies that the US military will be switching over to Kalashnikovs (and not even the latest model Kalashnikovs): rofl


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.

I don't like to assume bias from an author's name, but when a guy named "Slobodan Lekic" implies that the United States military will adopt Kalashnikov rifles, I don't have much choice. I can only conclude that this is a poorly-disguised East v West p---ing match ;)

Did you read the whole article, how about this part:


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.

Once again I find you bitching about how other people are biased while you just pick the part of the article that supports your view and seemingly disregard the rest of it. If anyone's showing bias around here mate, it's you.

[Ratamacue]

I don't see how the M8 could fix it unless it uses a new 5.56 ammo with a different rifling twist that somehow makes it more potent. Isn't the standard barrel actually shorter than the M4's? Something like 12.5 inches?

[Mark Sman]

Here are some rounds from 5.56 Black Hills Ammunition that could be considered.

40 Gr. NoslerBallistic Tip
Velocity 3600 FPS
Energy 1150 Ft. Lbs
This first one may present a legal question as it is a frangible projectile. Also how will it stack up against body armor?
Still at 40 gr. it will be easier to stabilise from the short barrel even without some crazy twist.

69 Gr. Sierra
Match HP
Velocity 2850 FPS
Energy 1227 Ft. Lbs.
If I was making the call, and you made me stick to 5.56, the above 69gr round would be it. I have fired this from a number
of different barrel lengths. To borrrow a phrase from Mona Lisa Vito "dead on balls accurate." It requires a heavier twist
than normal. 1/7 is about right. Packs quite the wallop for a 5.56 also.

Note the above velocity/energy ratings will change with the barrel length. But on the side of these rounds this company
already sells to US DOD, and they have an excellent reputation. I dont think DOD uses either of these rounds currently.


My personal call with designing a whole new weapon system for our soldiers would be a new caliber.

1. Decide what you want out of the round.

2. Pick or build the round.

3. THEN design the weapon to work with the round.

If after this process it is 5.56, so be it.

Problems with this suggestion.
What about NATO/SEATO/WHATEVERTO? Look everyone in NATO knows we are going to change soon, its just a question of when.
Guess which country will probably change first? One guess only. Use mental telepathy to send me your answer.

Amazing you picked the right answer.

[StarvingStudent47]

Once again I find you bitching about how other people are biased while you just pick the part of the article that supports your view and seemingly disregard the rest of it. If anyone's showing bias around here mate, it's you.

I honestly missed that sentence. I read the article, scratched my head, said "gosh, that's odd, they didn't mention the OICW." I read it again and missed it again. I've been pretty sleep-deprived recently ;) So my error.

And I wasn't "bitching"--I thought it was funny. I wasn't taking the whole thing too seriously. I just got a real kick out of the "Kalashnikovs rock" last couple of paragraphs.

[perdurabo]

let's ask how is Beryl doing in iraq Polish troops use it and basicly its Kalashnikov on 5.56 bullets, then we will know if AK is soo superior (witch i doubt) maybe from m16 yes but from other...?

[martinexsquaddie]

http://www.armalite.com/library/techNotes48.htm
intersting story about what happens when you chop a few inches of an M16 barrel and the effects on reliability and range.
Longer barrel means more velocity means better terminal effects now the Sa80a2 has been fixed probably better value than an M4 can do the CQB thing and still have a long range capability

[IDFM203]

I think it’s about time the army does this!!

Now with that said, this one thing on the bottom caught my attention



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. this author’s “isn’t as reliable as the AK-47” is way off. I mean if you read this he implies straight out that the AK’s are better for combat soldiers then the M16 and that is flat out not true. While yes the AK’s are stronger and don’t need as much cleaning, the accuracy doesn’t come close to what you can get with an m16.

Besides with proper cleaning (although granted it is a bit of a b*tch to do it often)you can take away that problem for the M16. The fact is that its easier to keep the M-16 reliable, than to make the AK accurate.

Also just note, while the AK47 perhaps does have more “knockdown” power (that’s if you can accurately hit the target) the AK-74 Is chambered in 5.45x39.5 and in some cases 5.56x45 (for the civilian market only) and not the 7.62 rounds

Now with that all said I wouldn’t take the AK or the m16. The M4, or the M24 SWS or the Tavor or etc….are all better then these two types of rifles.


P.S. to Gordon. Geez calm down. From where you got that starvingstudent47 is bitching all the time and is biased from simply reading wrong an m16 article I will never know :roll: , but some composure would be great next time you decide to chew out someone for making a mistake on an m16 rifle article. (I mean this ;) means that what he said was a joke or said in jest)

P.S.S. starvingstudent47 does however have a point with the authors name as to how this article could have a huge positive tilt towards the ak’s and a huge negative one towards the m16


Lastly if you respond, please don’t forget that we are talking about weapons arguments and not about politics or culture bias here. Stay focused on topic of the thread please.

Shalom :D

[REMOV]

By SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Writer
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. Ekhm... M16A2 was introduced in early 80s (M16A1E2 re-named M16A2 in September 1982, adopted by USMC in November 1983 and US ARMY in 1985), not M16A1 (1967) ;)

[REMOV]

While yes the AK’s are stronger and don’t need as much cleaning, the accuracy doesn’t come close to what you can get with an m16.Ekhm... 5,45mm AK-74s (AK-74M) accuracy is basicaly the same as 5,56mm M16A2. Less accuracy may be connected with open sights but not the gun or ammunition.

you can take away that problem for the M16. It's also not quite true - check jam procedures. The AK (both version) great advantage is eliminate jam of the weapon with ease.

The fact is that its easier to keep the M-16 reliable, than to make the AK accurate.Oh, really? ;) Within 100m all assault rifles are similar 5,56mm M16A2, 7,62mm AKM/AKMS, 5,45mm AK-74. No difference. But, the advantage of M16 is weapon sight - faciliates hit the target.

Now with that all said I wouldn’t take the AK or the m16. The m4, or the M24 SWS or the tavor or etc….are all better these two types of rifles.Well, the right weapon for right situation, M4 also have disadvantage - short barrel. M16A2 is more accurate than M4, and you cannot always pressume that the fight will be at 100-200m. Great bullpups advantage is a long barrel with short length of the weapon. So thats why in modern era MECHANIZED infantry the compact dimensions are important.

[IDFM203]

“While yes the AK’s are stronger and don’t need as much cleaning, the accuracy doesn’t come close to what you can get with an m16.”Ekhm... 5,45mm AK-74s (AK-74M) accuracy is basicaly the same as 5,56mm M16A2. Less accuracy may be connected with open sights but not the gun or ammunition. Ehem ;) true but that is not what I was talking about (or if I was I should have phrased my sentences a bit more clearer). I was mainly referring to the ak47 and its “knockdown” power and I said that it has more then the m16, but not the ak74 for the ak74 and the m16 have the same type of rounds.(I did point that out)

As for accuracy, I don’t really know much about the newer ak74 but for sure the ak47 does not have the same accuracy as the m16

But yeah as I before” the AK-74 Is chambered in 5.45x39.5 and in some cases 5.56x45 (for the civilian market only) and not the 7.62 rounds” so it was assumed already that it has the same accuracy as the m16. Again I brought it down to show that it doesn’t have the same “knockdown” power as the ak47.

I hope I made myself clearer now :D

Btw with the ak74, I would like to hear your overall review and comparison to the m16.


"you can take away that problem for the M16."It's also not quite true - check jam procedures. The AK (both version) great advantage is eliminate jam of the weapon with ease. Yes that’s true but again I did say right before that sentence “Besides with proper cleaning (although granted it is a bit of a b*tch to do it often)you can take away that problem for the M16”

Again the AK doesnt jam like the m16 but with proper cleaning you can lesson that problem. (Believe me I have a lot of experience with the m16/car15 types of rifles).


”The fact is that its easier to keep the M-16 reliable, than to make the AK accurate.”Oh, really? ;) Within 100m all assault rifles are similar 5,56mm M16A2, 7,62mm AKM/AKMS, 5,45mm AK-74. No difference. But, the advantage of M16 is weapon sight - faciliates hit the target. ok that was more in comparison to the ak47 and not to the ak74.

also overall, over 100m the m16 does have an advantage over the ak47.

I should have been more clear on that.

Again I would like to hear your overall review on the ak74 and a comparison to the m16 or to other rifles for I am interested in it…thanks :D


Now with that all said I wouldn’t take the AK or the m16. The m4, or the M24 SWS or the tavor or etc….are all better these two types of rifles”Well, the right weapon for right situation, M4 also have disadvantage - short barrel. true thats why in the Israeli army besides using the M4 or car15’s, in basic training and in other "situations" you get the m16 long barrels(I don’t want to go into details due to OPSEC violations but suffice to say we recognise exactly what you are saying here)


M16A2 is more accurate than M4, yes and that’s why I brought down other rifles as well.

I recoginse that the M4 is not a great all purpose rifle for it does have its deficiencies.



and you cannot always pressume that the fight will be at 100-200m. Great bullpups advantage is a long barrel with short length of the weapon. yes but most of them have their disadvantages in MOUT or CQB situations due to the placement of the ejection ports.



Thanks for your input, these discussions are why I originally came to this site before I got caught up in the political discussions (which as you can see I am a bit addicted to :| )

Shalom :D

[Durandal]

starvingstudent47 does however have a point with the authors name as to how this article could have a huge positive tilt towards the ak’s and a huge negative one towards the m16

Actually it probably has nothing to do with the Ak so much as propoganda for wasting money replacing one 5.56 weapon system with yet ANOTHER 5.56 weapon system.

Damn if this still does not chap my ass.

Replace the M4s and M16s when you have a generation platform and not a minute sooner.

Half measures mean nothing.

[California Joe]

The AK functions after being dropped in the mud and run over because of the extremely loose tolerances. Like the old 1911 Colts. The trade off is in accuracy etc. as any gun nut can tell you. But if you're spraying an area within 50 yards who cares.

[IDFM203]

The AK functions after being dropped in the mud and run over because of the extremely loose tolerances. Like the old 1911 Colts. The trade off is in accuracy etc. as any gun nut can tell you. But if you're spraying an area within 50 yards who cares. Yes and any “gun nut” knows as well about the AK’s sturdiness when dropped or its better ability to handle harsh conditions. On that there is no debate!!

Now with that said. Accuracy is very important. Your example of fifty yards is not relevant as a decider of which is better (if that was your intention, though not sure) for A, a lot of cases are over fifty yards or over a hundred yards where accuracy of the rifle is vary paramount and B, most cases even in that range they are not “spraying” the area and C if they are, I rather go for an Uzi or an MP5 or an etc… then those two weapons.

Just note, I don’t know much about the newer AK74, so most of my analysis is on the AK47

Just some thoughts…… :D

Shalom :D

[Dalleer]

I wonder if the Germans had similar problems with the G3A3 before the G36 since the G3 is a long rifle making aiming inside vehicles quite difficult, I'd think...

Then again I wouldn't know how long is the G36 either so...

[California Joe]

My point was simply that a rifle machined to higher tolerances, will show incredible accuracy but if it's dropped in the mud it may become useless. The problem then becomes, how far do I need this thing to shoot to kill the enemy vs. how loose can I make these tolerances so it will still function no matter what.

[Pandy]

I've shot my AR-15 for the pass 5 years, cleaned it like 10 times a year. go Shoot every 2 weeks, shoot off about 500-1000 rounds eachtime, and it never jammed...

Now... my MAK-90 (China Made AK-47) - Shot it for about 4 years.... clean it every year... shoot off about 500-1000 rounds eachtime... only jammed twice...

Remember, I go shooting in sun shine, rain, snow, you name it. I do oil them down if they get wet, but around that, only clean them when I have to... :)

[IDFM203]

My point was simply that a rifle machined to higher tolerances, will show incredible accuracy but if it's dropped in the mud it may become useless. The problem then becomes, how far do I need this thing to shoot to kill the enemy vs. how loose can I make these tolerances so it will still function no matter what. You raise a great point here :D (see I am not that insensitive as you thought I am ;) ) I totally hear what your saying. I guess it boils down to different environments. Meaning in Vietnam and its harsh jungle environments, the AK47 is probably better then the m16 (although not sure). But in less tolerant and harsh areas such as the middle east (yes I know about the sand and that is a problem but it can be overcome with proper cleaning as well as simply brushing it off) I will take the accuracy of an M16 any day over an ak47

Lets not forget that in Israel we had galil’s (very similar to the ak47)but by the 90’s the IDF switched over the infantry to m16’s and car15’s and only left the tanks and artillery corps(sp?) with the galil’s. (And this wasn’t a money issue for the idf had these m16’s from the seventies in storage but chose to keep it in storage and instead opted for the more expensive galil. It only switched later after its special forces switched to the m16 for it was better and then later the rest of the infantry followed suit)

But again I wouldnt take any of those rifles anyways. the M4, Tavor, and etc... are all prefered over those two weapons.

Shalom :D

[Kingpin]

Kalashnikov rocks as usual :)

Idfm (RTFM hehe), you made some mistakes about AK. you called 5.56 version - "civil". Hah! Very funny... There is no civil AKs because we here can't own any kind of automatic weapons at home. As for police they use both 7.62 and 5.45. AK developer and manufacturer now offers for military AKs for all main ammo types including NATO 5.56.

And by the way about China made AK, Poland made AK, Iraqi made AK and so on so on including all derivatives - i don't think that we should include these things into discussion. This isn;t AK or this thing does not habe authentic AK quality :).

People in our military who have chance to compare those things said that all of them is a crap when comparing to good ol' Soviet made AKM :) (with GP-25 sure)

[martinexsquaddie]

I belive East German Aks were the best Quality AKs available like there soviet model tanks high quality but they share a design fault with the leapord occasionaly there vear to east heading for moscow destroying everything in there path :lol:

[Royal]

There are many problems with the M-16, but I doubt you'll find a single NATO soldier who would rather use an AK-74.

I would.

The L85A2 is more accurate and more reliable than any M16 derrivative, but I still prefer the C7/C8 or even the M16A2 due to their simplicity and ease of maintenance. At the sub 100m range AK derrivatives are as accurate as the M16, they are also simpler and more ergonomic. Hence for that kind of role they have the edge.

Overall I prefer the Diemaco (or even L85A2) as they are short enough to use in OBUA (MOUT to the Yanks) and AFV/Helo Ops and have the range for work in open country, but for pure OBUA?heli Ops (given a choice that I don't have ;) ), I'd take an AK.

[Herrmannek]

I belive East German Aks were the best Quality AKs available like there soviet model tanks high quality but they share a design fault with the leapord occasionaly there vear to east heading for moscow destroying everything in there path :lol:

(*) Na Polish AK's are ze best ;), And I'm sure they are better than russian :)


(*) 1: Polish Ak's are ze Best
2: If they aren't GOTO: 1

[WARPIG]

Just a little note. M4 or "like" carbines are the most sought after assault weapon in the world. It continues as an interim weapon for the US despite the myriad of advances and changes. (like bullpup config.) Even the new OICW is a close derivative of the original carbine. Who ever wrote that article seemed to think AK's had better stopping power... weapons don't decide stoppin power, the round does. He is obviously a novice.
Also, the M4 is a mainstay in the average rifle platoon. More grunts carry M4's than A2's. This isn't really as a replacement but as a factor of the type of warfare that is predominant right now. More rifle squads will be equipped with more versatility as we progress.
This also brings to mind the OICW. US military didn't replace the M16 with a M203. So sayin the M4 will be replaced with the OICW is a little far fetched. It is a specialized weapon that will require specialized applications and training. Think of the damage a semi-auto 5 round barrage of airburst grenades would do in a typical grunts hands. Can you say "fratracide?" The OICW will be put in the hands of the team leader (in a scout, MP or like wheeled fire team) and the grenadier or other weapons specialist for a rifle team or squad. Might be a good spotter's weapon for a sniper.
Don't forget the UN's love of STANAG. That won't go away easily and there will be a much bigger change than just the US if it does go. Any grunt will tell you that a 7.62 round in an assault weapon would make them giddy.

[Saranof]

Why don't they just get the g36 and stop nagging ? :|

[Roger Rabbit]

Are you still on active service Royal?

[Royal]

Am I still serving, yes.

Am I on Ops, no.

I'm shining my fat arse in front of a VDU, doing my staff time.

[IDFM203]

Kalashnikov rocks as usual :)

Idfm (RTFM hehe), you made some mistakes about AK. you called 5.56 version - "civil". Hah! Very funny... There is no civil AKs because we here can't own any kind of automatic weapons at home. ok Kingpin (BLET hehe ;) ) first off, you only corrected One mistake (if I actually made that one) and not mistakes. So that’s not bad for a non-AK expert (which I am not). Secondly, I read somewhere that there are civilian AK’s meaning for the civilian market (that’s to be understood when I say that) now if Russia (or the soviet union) didn’t make those but some other country, than perhaps I should have been a bit more clear about that distinction. The fact is though, that there are Civilian (for the civilian market) AK’s in this world that fire the 5.56 round and whether the Russians make it or another Licensed country makes it, makes no difference to what I said for it still stands.
and if they make it for the military then thats ok as well.

On a separete note, I would be curious as to what you thought about the Israeli Galil???? Some have said its better and some have said it’s the same or worse (well I know of course as to what your going to say but still I want to hear it anyways…..)

Me personally I wouldnt go near the galil or the ak but I guess we have different thinking ;)

shalom :D