[telewinz]

I am interested on comments about the official Army report that states their rifles (M16's) jamming is one of the main factors on why so many members of the Army maintainance group (Jessica) were KIA in an ambush that occurred during operation Iraqi Freedom. I should think this would result into a serious re-examination of our current issue rifle. "Human error" (maintainence)will not be an acceptable explanation to me, we have had 40 years to iron-out (if any) design problems. Better a reliable Mini-14 or AK74 than an unreliable M16! Maybe this war IS turning into another Vietnam!:uhoh:

[Steve in PA]

You won't accept human error???

Any piece of machinery will fail if not taken care of. Sorry, if the weapons jammed......it was because of poor maintainence.......human error if you will. They were in a war.........hell, I'd be making sure I did PM on my weapon(s) every chance I got. There are no design problems.......keep your damn weapon clean. These were not infantry...they were motor-T...I'd be very suprised if they wiped down their weapons once a week.

No one elses weapon seemed to jam..........so just the M16's that were on this convoy would lead to all of them being replaced?

Just heard on a morning tv show that the major factors were fatigue and a series of wrong turns.

[RustyHammer]

... the "Official Report", which isn't even out yet (although an early draft is in today's news) sites poor maintenance by the 507th as the cause of the "failures".

Guns not properly maintained, particularly in a harsh environment WILL fail ... is that surprising? Is that a design flaw?

I'd be more interested in learning more about how they performed in FRONT LINE units.

You typically wouldn't hear much about Iraqi AK's failing, because the "owners" either pitched them and ran or wound up as cannon fodder.

Rusty

See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-10-lynch-report_x.htm

[Andrew Wyatt]

IMHO, any person who doesn't give a crap about their life enough to maintain their weapon deserves what they get.


that said, the-16 is probably a better weapon for the envrionment than the ak, since it has a dustcover.

[Ekie]

Hey there Steve, we meet again.

“You won't accept human error???”

Seems to me he is saying that it is preferable that their rifles worked, whether or not they had green followers, certain brand of mags and lube, been wiped down every 30 minutes, and stored in a plastic bag. Would have proven a great advantage in this situation.

”hell, I'd be making sure I did PM on my weapon(s) every chance I got.
If carrying a M16 (or most any other service rifle) in a Gulf sand storm that is a very good idea.

”No one elses weapon seemed to jam..........”

“Seemed” is the operative word here.

Rusty

“Guns not properly maintained, particularly in a harsh environment WILL fail ... is that surprising? Is that a design flaw? “

No, but some rifles require more maintenance then others. The M16 requires more maintenance then was given them by the 507th. So the real question is, what required level of maintenance is acceptable in an infantry rifle. What level of maintenance required is acceptable is obviously arguable, and I can make a good guess at were the members of the 507th “stand” on this issue (those still alive that is).

”I'd be more interested in learning more about how they performed in FRONT LINE units.”

Me too.

”You typically wouldn't hear much about Iraqi AK's failing, because the "owners" either pitched them and ran or wound up as cannon fodder.”

True, but another reason is that a AK requires very little maintenance. IZHMASH does suggest that the rifle be cleaned, to extent service life.

Andrew

“IMHO, any person who doesn't give a crap about their life enough to maintain their weapon deserves what they get.”

Your lack of respect for US Service men and women killed in combat is deplorable.

[SodaPop]

You might as well put the Apache helicopters in there. Both are high maintenace weapons that didn't do too well in sand storms.

But what doesn't?

The Israeli's are right next door and they still use the M16.

[Ekie]

"You might as well put the Apache helicopters in there. Both are high maintenace weapons that didn't do too well in sand storms."

Attack choppers are a bit more complicated then infantry rifles.

"The Israeli's are right next door and they still use the M16."

Yes, the required maintenance for the M16 has proven quite acceptable for IDF purposes. Hmm, that brings up a good point, do note that the Galil is commonly issued to REMF types.

Do they have large sand storms in Israel?

[mattd]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35551-2003Jul9.html

THe m-16 jams, blows up, If i was in Iraq I could pick up a ak-47 and ditch the m-16.

They need to issue the ar-18 or something like it, because the gas system on the m16 sucks.

the ak47 doesn't need a dust cover because it has one built in.

[Mark Tyson]

As a battle rifle, the M-16 is a disaster, and it seems that some of our soldiers have lost their lives because of it. I have had M-16's jam on me far too often to accept the "you just need to maintain it" line. A battle rifle should be able to function when you don't have time to maintain it - like when you've just low crawled through sand or mud for example.

The best way to kill someone with a dusty M-16 is to beat them over the head with it.

It's not that I don't like this "black rifle" - I have several AR's myself. But It's no good as a battle rifle. As a police or civilian defense weapon where it can get regular cleaning, it's fine.

[Andrew Wyatt]

Your lack of respect for US Service men and women killed in combat is deplorable.


I have an immense respect for US servicemen and women.


I just don't think very highly of people who don't care enough about the tools of their trade to take care of them properly.

[CWL]

Facts:

The sandstorms occuring in Iraq at that time were comprised of extrafine sand -it was likened to powdered sugar.

US Army doctrine in this Theater was to clean firearms a least TWICE per day.

There were no reports of mass-weapons failure by front-line troops using M16/M4 weapons.

The ambushed group were rear-echelon support personell and did not follow proper proceedure in maintenance (nor map-reading).

Iraqi soldiers also had to rigorously maintain their AK weapons.

No catastrophic failures were reported by US troops during the 1st Gulf War.

Complaints about original M16A1 failures in Vietnam ceased after troops were issued cleaning kits and taught proper maintenance, plus changing of ball propellant back to original design specs.

Let's wait for the report to come out before another condemnation by people who have never carried one in battle.

[Jaywalker]

Infantry units tend to maintain their weapons because their sergeants make sure they do, as the M-16 (or whatever) is the primary tool of their trade to accomplish their mission. That isn't the case with transport, artillery, clerks, whatever. Their sergeants are ensuring that trucks, tubes, computers, whatever, are maintained as they are the primary tools of that trade. Any extra time they can use to work on their personal gear (M-16), or, possibly, sleep. If they'd put their own weapons before the mission, they'd have some pointed words directed at them.

We're focused on the rifles because of our interest in the general subject. I suspect the run of the mill infantry guy isn't particularly, much less the support folk. The military, as a whole, is even less so. Infantry invests territory, preferably without fighting for it, after it's been engaged with artillery, armor, and air power. The military puts its money there.

M-16s are more than defensive weapons, but not much more; it's the difference between being "engaged," and "closely engaged." The folk at the sharp end need something that will go "bang" when they need it to. We owe them that, even if they were too tired to clean it properly.

Jaywalker

[Mike Irwin]

Is it my imagination, or has virtually EVERY report of a weapon jamming come from this particular unit?

What are the odds of EVERY bad M-16, M2, and M249 being issued to THIS unit and this unit alone, out of the many hundreds of thousands that are in service today?

My gut feeling is that this was NOT primarily a mechanical problem.


As for the M-16 being a "disaster," please provide factual information to back that up, Mark.

What constitutes a "disaster?" This incident?

Then were are the supporting weapons failures from other units at the same time?

There are hardly any.

Here's another nasty fact.

The M1 Garand, one of the most venerated combat rifles of all time, WAS NOT immune to environmental-related failures, ESPECIALLY in North Africa.

[JShirley]

My M16A4 worked fine during Basic (ITB OSUT)...except when I had to crawl in sand. Malf city after that...

John

[RKCheung]

I have no doubt that it was sand in the weapons that caused the jams. Whether proper cleaning and lubrication was done by those ill-fated individuals is unclear since they are not here to tell us.

Regardless, during the road march in the initial days of the war, the route consisted of hauling @$$ through the middle of the desert until almost to An Nasiriyah where it transferred to hard-ball. During this road march hundred of vehicles in numerous convoys traveled the same path, grinded the desert sand into a very very fine particulate dust which was inevitably churned up by the HMMWV tires and ended up caking the inside of said vehicle in several inches of dust. Even if you had cleaned and lubed your rifle, these conditions would certainly cause it to jam. Also, one would be hesitant to start field stripping the weapon while snaking through enemy territory.

I found that the ideal PM routine involved cleaning off any dust and sand in the areas where there were moving parts (bolt, chamber, charging handle, trigger housing, etc.) and to use a fair amount of CLP to coat those surfaces (especially the bolt). Unfortunately, CLP also acts as a magnet for dust and sand thus will actually make the weapon more difficult to clean. Of course, more frequent cleaning is preferable to not lubing at all and certain jamming.

As to whether front-line units weapons jammed, yes they did. Not to the same degree, but it still happened. M-16s do require a large degree of TLC to operate effectively in a desert environment. I would not trade it for an AK-47 either. The ones I saw in Iraq (that were not totally destroyed) were not in good shape and were also coated in some heavy lubricant. Apparently, that Iraqi's knew that even AK-47s are not immune to the unforgiving sands of the desert.

[Steve in PA]

As stated.......this unit seems to be the only unit that reported weapons failure..........no one needs to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

Better abandon the Apache and the M1 tank........sand plays havoc with them too.

Guess we'll stick to rocks and clubs.

:rolleyes:

[JShirley]

Malf(unction): weapon fails to load, fire, or eject
Jam: weapon is inoperable, and requires 20-level intervention (IE, tools required to restore)

Q- What is a malfunction?
A- The weapon ceasing to fire due to a stoppage resulting from mechanical failure of the weapon, magazine or ammo. http://www.armystudyguide.com/m16/studyguide.htm

[Kentucky Rifle]

I've found that Militec does a better job than CLP.

KR

[mattd]

The m16s main problem is that the gas system is way underpowered. The gas piston design is way better, if not the best.

[Jeff White]

Better dump the Browning M2 .50 caliber MG and the M249 SAW too, because according to the report, they also failed.

For those of you who don't like the M16, no amount of evidence will ever change your mind and you will hang on every anecdotal and documented report of a malfunction as proof positive that the US military has made a 40 year mistake and we will lose our freedom and be over run by the enemy de jour if we don't immediately scrap the M16 for the AK, Mini 14, Brown Bess Musket or Hi Pointe Carbine.....So this post isn't directed to you. It is impossible to change your opinions with the facts. It's directed at those who have little or no experience with military small arms who want to know the truth.

The truth is that any weapon would have failed in the conditions that the 507th faced. Even the mighty M1 jams when full of sand and crud. I am in possession of a videotape copy of a WWII training film. In in an actor portraying a seriously wounded soldier is telling his younger brother in a letter how his failure to maintain his M1 caused him to end up severly wounded. He also recounts how other soldiers have been killed or wounded because they neglected to maintain their weapons and they failed them when they shouldn't have.

The M16 had it's teething problems, but it has been a very reliable weapon in the 29 years I have carried one through service in the regular Army, the Army Reserve and the National Guard. Yes you have to keep it clean, but you have to keep any semi-automatic or automatic weapon clean if you expect it to continue to function. In 29 years in combat arms (Infantry and Artillery) I have seen almost every kind of malfunction and jam you can imagine. Almost all of them were be attributed to operator error or bad magazines. In 1990 I was on a deployment for training in Honduras. We provided training for members of the Sixth Battalion, 110th Brigade of the Honduran Army. They were armed with the oldest most beat up M16A1s I had ever seen. Finish was gone in many cases. Dust covers were missing or flapping in the breeze because the springs were broken. Protective ears on the front and rear sights were bent. Furniture was held together with 100 mph tape. But guess what? They were clean, and they fired every time they pressed the trigger. We used every spare part we brought for our weapons to repair theirs. Before we left, we stripped parts off our rifles to fix theirs. Yet these brave young men who daily patrolled the Nicaraguan border never complained. They knew their rifles would shoot when they needed them to. When we left they were prettier and more accurate, but they functioned just as well.

Remember one thing. The world wide special forces community, those soldiers who can have any rifle they want, overwhelmingly choose the M16/M4. Let the M16 haters rant and rave. You can't change their minds...But don't ever fear being sent into combat with an M16 series weapon. Take care of it and it will take care of you.

Jeff

[telewinz]

Being "soldier proof" is a long time design requirement for a military weapon. We should demand nothing less for our troops! The AK47 is a legend in this area, why isn't the M16 after 40 YEARS of developement! A working AK or other design is better than an iffy M16.:uhoh:

[Mannlicher]

I see an awful lot of rhetoric here parroting what folks have read. I don't see much being said from anyone that has used either an AK or an AR in a combat situation in a dessert setting.

[Andrew Wyatt]

A working AK or other design is better than an iffy M16

I'll take an m-16 that james once every magazine that i can make hits with over the AK, which has horrible sights and trigger which i can not hit with.

[HeavyHaul]

I carried an M-16 for 15 years in the Army, and still have one in the Reserves. I served in the First Gulf War. Carried an M-16 there. It got cleaned before every convoy, (I was a truckdriver, what some would call a REMF) and was wiped down during any rest stops made. My platoon would all do the same thing. However we staggered the wipe downs so that a minimum amount of weapons were out of action for cleaning. Never had any problems with it. And had I been called to go this time I would have no qualms about carring an M-16/M-4 in Iraq, again.

Bill

[Mike Irwin]

"I see an awful lot of rhetoric here parroting what folks have read."

AWK!

Mike would still take an M-16!

AWK!

[mattd]

I'll take an m-16 that james once every magazine that i can make hits with over the AK, which has horrible sights and trigger which i can not hit with.

Say you was in Iraq, you seen a Iraqi about to ambush you, you turn to shoot, and click, nothing happens in tell he opens fire and kills you. Would you still want a m-16 that jams every mag?

Anyone happen to know the number of m-16 jams per 10,000 rounds of ammo? Compared to the ak-47?

[Andrew Wyatt]

that's not a stoppage that's likely to happen because i'd have already chambered a round.


i'd take an enfield over an ak because i hate the sights so much.

[amprecon]

The M-16 is no doubt a polarizing topic. I have never operated an M-16, so therefore I am not "qualified" to commend or condemn it. My impressions of it come from what I've read about it and from those who have experience with it.

The first bad impression I got of it was when I learned of its developmental history, when politicians got involved and pushed it.
The second, as an aircraft mechanic and admirer of many different mechanical designs, gun and non-gun, I have seen better designs.
The third impression is in the caliber, as a shooter and hunter, I know what is effective on 200lb size animals and at what ranges they are effective at.

On the contrary, I have never been in the infantry nor have I ever used one in combat. It might very well be that the rifle is a blessing to carry when compared to a Garand.
It might be that its a natural pointer when a quick accurate point-and-shoot might be the difference between life and death.
It might be that it just plain looks cooler than any other service rifle we've ever had and its futuristic space-age looking silhouette just scares the enemy into surrendering lest they get "stunned" by it.

I don't know, but I know this, I don't have one, and it's because of my personal preferences and the knowledge that there are many more rifles to choose from that meet "my personal" criteria. Those which I deem are better and more useful to me.

[Jim K]

I have long considered the M16 a poor choice in dusty or sandy areas, mainly because of the close fitting of the barrel and bolt head, the bolt head to the carrier and the carrier to the receiver. The close tolerances involved are just not conducive to best performance in dirty or dusty areas. As for the dust covers, the idea of keeping dirt out of a rifle in a sandstorm is a pipe dream, no matter how many covers it has.

I have no doubt that the M16 will function adequately if given continual care and cleaning. I am also well aware that soldiers do tend to "goof off" in rifle cleaning, especially support troops who have jobs other than fighting and to whom the rifle is more of a nuisance than a vital tool.

Still, I detect a strong odor of coverup in blaming weapons failure on the troops. That was done in VN, and there was a lot of truth in it. But it was not until later that the Army admitted that much of the problem was due to the way the powder was manufactured, something over which the troops had no control.

Jim

[goon]

that said, the-16 is probably a better weapon for the envrionment than the ak, since it has a dustcover.


I doubt that. The AK doesn't need a dustcover.
The M-16 does work, but you need to stay on it.
I know that they will work with a handful of sand, but that was an M-16 that had been about half worn out by previous recruits. It had more play in it than it really should have, but it did work.
The thing that makes an AK work is the combination of alot of gas being directed in such a way that it smacks the hell out of the action and the loose tolerances of the gun. You can hold a new milled AK and shake the charging handle around with the gun locked in battery. A little slop can be a good thing.
An M-16 will usually outshoot an AK, but if I had to choose between the two in general, the AK gets the nod for reliability.
My only jams with the M-16's that I had were with blanks or because of a weak extractor spring.
The weak spring caused the empty to not be ejected, but the next round would still try to chamber. This resulted in the bolt riding over the empty casing and stopping the gun cold. It was a b*tch to clear at first, but I soon learned to drop the mag and yank HARD on the charging handle. This would eject the empty and the live round out the mag well. I would then put the mag back in the rifle, chamber and fire a few more rounds.
Jam.
Clear.
Jam.
Empty mag with about a dozen loaded rounds on the ground (sand) and still about eight targets to hit.
Grab a round.
Chamber.
Fire.
Repeat.
This went on until I found the spring the day before qualification in BCT. My drill sergeant replaced the weak spring with one from a spare rifle. I shot the next day with no CLP (praying all the while). Not a single jam.
Any gun will fail if is broken, and enough fine powdery dirt will screw anything short of a knife or a claw hammer up. Keep the dirt cleaned out and do good PM and you will be good to go.
It comes down to the mindset.
Your weapon is your life.
But I would still choose an AK design if I had the choice.

[OEF_VET]

I see an awful lot of rhetoric here parroting what folks have read. I don't see much being said from anyone that has used either an AK or an AR in a combat situation in a dessert setting.
Well, I guess it's time for me to chime in then. But I actually used it in a desert setting. I've never shot a strawberry shortcake with one though.

The M-16 / M-4 is a good weapon, if maintained properly! The Afghan sand (and sandstorms) is very fine, and gets into everything. As long as you clean the weapon frequently and take as many precautions as situationally feasible. Things like covering your weapon with a poncho during a sandstorm, or actually using the little black muzzle caps from the arms room will go far towards keeping the weapon operational. If I were to be recalled today and told I'd be going back to the Middle East, I'd feel confident carrying my old M-4 (s/n W016312). As it is, I carried that same weapon for over 4 years, from Kosovo to Afghanistan, and always had faith in Nora Jean (yes, she had a name).

Frank

[Byron Quick]

Yep, the AK47 is an absolute unstoppable wizard. Only rifle I've ever fired that I needed my safety glasses. Probably a good thing it was stolen. Wonder if the poor fool was wearing safety glasses when he fired it?

[BDM]

All I have to say is any one with AOL read the news today about what the army has found out so far,not only were M16s jammed so did the M249 they had with them wich some peoplw will still say thats prone to jamming but they also said a .50 cal browing"Ma Deuce"also was jammed so that tells me bad maintence caused people their lives so lets stop flaming the M16,it was also said they were told to clean their weapons evry day,The .50 cal has been around 80 years and used everywhere,so it just wasnt M16s it was all the weapons they had,whats that tell ya,it tells me know the stregnths and weaknesse of your weapon,if it were me knowing what I know in that environment,Id be checking my weapon a few times aday,I dont know if any of you watch mail call on history channel but the new episode last sunday showed soldiers in a chow line sand blowing every where and no muzzle caps on the rifles some had a mag in others did not,and no one else including specops are complaining,why?because they take care of the weapons they stake their lives on,the israelis dont have problems and they live in the desert,The only countrys using AKs are the ones that cant afford M16s.

[RKCheung]

I see an awful lot of rhetoric here parroting what folks have read. I don't see much being said from anyone that has used either an AK or an AR in a combat situation in a dessert setting.

I carried the M16A2 during the war in Iraq. Does that count? My comments are already posted above.

[JShirley]

Jeff,

"For those of you who don't like the M16, no amount of evidence will ever change your mind and you will hang on every anecdotal and documented report of a malfunction as proof positive that the US military has made a 40 year mistake and we will...(hyperbole)"

I don't like the M16 family. I have no problem with the cartridge, I freely admit that the ergonomics are superior, and despite the old and poor design I have no doubt that, failing breakthroughs in shoulder arms technology, it could serve our forces fairly well for the next twenty years.

As I mentioned, my M16 worked just fine, until the first time I IMT'd. Sand it liked not. I use an M4 now, and it's a handy little arm. I feel well armed enough with it, but I don't trust it as well as I'd like...but I trust it enough.

Thanks for telling me how I feel, though. :rolleyes:

John

[Sunray]

"...No one elses weapon seemed to jam..." Did you not see the reports about the Brit rifle? Jamamatic and worse. These pop guns are just not made for desert conditions. They'e too finely engineered. Too tight tolerances. Mind you, so will any rifle when a bazllion pounds of fine sand is blown into it over several hours or more.
The 16 was made for use by the little fellows in SEA, then modified for use in Europe. Sand storms of biblical proportions were never imagined, never mind planned for.

[Jeff White]

John,
If the shoe fits ;) Seriously, I'm sure you know the type I'm referring to.

Have you replicated your IMT/sand experience with any other weapon? I promise you that you can get enough sand and crud into any weapon to jam it. This goes for the AK, the M1, the FN-FAL, M14 etc.

No doubt about it, get enough sand in the locking lugs and you'll jam your M16. But, if you get enough sand in the locking lugs of any rifle and it'll jam.

Do the NCOs in your unit allow their soldiers to run around with mud and grime caking their weapons? If you were the small arms product manager for the army and could pick any rifle you wanted, would you want the NCOs to let the men run around with their weapons caked in mud and grime (or sand if they were in the desert) and still expect the rifle of your choice to function when the soldiers needed it to?

You've been in the army for what, about two years? I'm sure you've seen how soldiers in some units treat their weapons. Kicked around on the floors of 5 tons....dragged through the mud by broken slings...kicked around in the dirt and sand in the bottom of foxholes.....etc. ad infinatum.

Now tell me what rifle you'd recommend that you are sure could take that kind of treatment in the dirty, dusty, wet, cold, hot dry environments that the US Army is expected to operate in and function with 100% reliability with no preventative maintenance, even having the crud wiped off.

I honestly believe that no small arms anyone here could name would have changed what happened to the 507th Maintenance Company. They could have had Militech, Drislide or any other lube you can name on those weapons and it wouldn't have changed what happened. From everything I have read and heard, from both official and unofficial sources, including a report from an officer I know online who was with one of the Marine units that was involved I can only conclude that this was a leadership failure.

It's always easier for everyone involved to blame the weather, blame the equipment, blame the fog of war. But we shouldn't take the easy way. We need to look hard at what happened and make changes to see that it doesn't happen again. Changing the rifle we issued to those soldiers would have made no difference. Even an AK won't function in those conditions without some basic maintenance.

Go over to TASC (or ask your training NCO or Bn S3 shop, whoever has the account) Audiovisual and see if you can check out a copy of The Late Company B. It's another WWII vintage training film that does an outstanding job of showing who ignoring the basic soldiering tasks in a lot of little ways (and sometimes for very good reasons) can all add up and cause a unit to be destroyed in combat. If they were to update that film, it would probably be the story of the 507th.

Yet to many posters here, on other sites and on firearms related mailing lists, the only lesson they will draw is that we need to replace the M16. Why do they conclude this when the M16 had no bearing on what happened? I can only conclude that they have only one agenda, to replace the M16.

Jeff

[JShirley]

Jeff,

I do agree that it does the job. I have often called for replacement, but that's mostly because I feel a cartridge can be found that would be superior (streamlining both the TOE mix and ammo supply), not because of my distrust for the platform.

I have fired other weapons in sandy conditions (as a civilian), but somehow didn't really roll around in and low crawl through sand with them. :D I do plan on doing this with my G1 after I get out. Maybe I'll try it with my M1 Carbine, too, just as a reference. Perhaps also with a good bolt action, like one of my 1917's.

Drill Sgts are most certainly not the font of all that is true, but I recall one saying when teaching SPORTS: "This is what you should do when your rifle jams. And it will jam." Unfortunately, as I mentioned, I have no good basis for comparison under adverse conditions, as I've tried to take decent care of my arms while out shooting before I enlisted. When not in sand, I don't remember having any malfs except when firing blanks.

I propose to do an in-depth comparison at a later date (after ETS), and I'll report results.

John

[Solinvictus70]

Don't discount a poor armorer as well. In my reserve unit, our armorer was a perpetually drunk 15 year Spec 4. At one point on annual qualification, an M16 was assembled incorrectly out of the rack and it locked up to the point that a hammer and punch was needed to pop the bolt group out of the receiver. :uhoh:

[duckfoot]

I have to agree with the mind set remark when dealing with weapons the you may have to use to defend (self, country, family, etc...) with.

[Byron]

Infantryman clean their weapons not becuase the SGT orders but because they want to stay alive. I was a 20 year old infantryman in 1968 with D Co., 3/8th INF, 4th INF DIV. (oct 68-69). We operated in the Central Highlands. I cleaned it often as did all those in other wars that came before me. The 16 is a good weapon. The AK is a good weapon. It can fail too.Picking up a AK instead of a 16 is a good way to draw friendly fire. Maintainence is the only answer. Military epquipment is pushed to extremes in combat. My 16 never failed me.

[OEF_VET]

Byron,

I served in D-3/8 Inf. as well. Except for me it was 1991, and 3/8 was part of 8th ID by then, in Mainz, Germany. I know, OT, but figured I'd say hi just the same.

Frank

[Byron]

Frank, The last we knew of the 3/8th was it stood down from the 4th after Nam. Send me a separate e-mail and I would like to share the heratage of D Co. D Co from Nam got together a few years ago. Byron
dlachip@yahoo.com

[Jim K]

FWIW, I think the AR-18 was superior to either the AR-15/M16 or the AK-47. Any thing short of a truck load of dirt simply does not bother it. Too bad the army didn't hang loose for a while until the "better mousetrap" came along.

I agree with a lot of what has been said about the need for first echelon maintenance and any rifle jamming if it picks up enough crud. Still, it is odd that those who used it and defend it seem to be saying that the M16/M4 has to be cleaned on an almost continual basis, 24x7. Is the enemy always going to be cooperative enough to take a "time out" to allow U.S. troops to clean their rifles?

Jim

[Art Eatman]

I went through Basic at Fort Bliss at El Paso. 1954; Garands. I discovered during the later stages of a firing exercise that I had the only rifle of 40 that was still shooting. The Field First Sgt. wandered over to see why this was. Simple: I had one of those GI squirt cans of gun-cleaner. When the action got dirty from powder residue and blowing dust/sand, I just squirted some cleaner into the receiver and kept on shooting. No biggie, I thought.

The Field First and I had all the guys waiting around while we took turns shooting up all the "leftover" ammo. :D

The only near-problem I had was the FF didn't really believe the trigger on my Garand was "as-issue". :) Sometimes it's best to be able to fib just a little, with a straight face.

Art

[zxc]

excellent posts!
if the issue is to minimize recurrence: alt design/
rifle platform ie the AK has been presented, human
factor has been explored and environmental situations
has been acknowledged.
Everybody can see that as a
whole the Defense Dept will choose to look at overall
result and stay the line.
Lessons will be learned, yada.
Unfortunately, expecting to see this again in my lifetime.
Will be writing my elected officials meantime will
be standing behind the troops.
God bless.
What a way to go...
lucky PvtLynch.

[Jeff White]

Jim,
You don't need to clean the M16 continuously. In most environments once a day or even every other day is sufficient. As Art just posted, squirt a little CLP in the action and she'll keep on running. Don't let it get covered in mud or dirt, keep it wiped off and you'll be fine.

The desert with it's blowing sand and talcum powder dust is a different story. The best bet is to keep it covered until needed. Wet lube will attract the dust and sand like a super magnet so use it very sparingly.

From what I know about how many CS and CSS units maintain their small arms, is that they don't. That's not what they fight with. In my minds eye, I see the 507th moving up the MSR with weapons that were so covered in dust that they were tan colored and not black like they should have been. I have seen soldiers in these types of units run chains through the carry handles and padlock their rifles into their vehicles. From the information I've received, they moved up the MSR with no security with their headlights blazing. Cnavas was all tied down on their vehicles, no air guards or soldiers ridign with weapons trained outboard.

This is a leadership problem, not an equipment problem. Now I want to ask one question. What is the difference between those who seek to use the blood of the soldiers of the 507th to sell the Army and new rifle and new lubricant and the Brady Bunch using the blood of the victims of the latest mass shooting to sell more gun control?

Jeff

[BDM]

no difference at all Jeff. these two groups will use these unfortunate incidents caused by an individual or group of individuals to demonize the object or issue to further their agenda,they just publicize the incident and misinform to gain support for problems that do not exist,in the armys case simple,"clean your weapons" maybe better leadership in rear area operations .the antgunners issue of using the shooting to say we shouldnt own guns,the fix"every law abiding citizen should be able to have a weapon at their side at work or not"if the man who tried to wrestle the shotgun away from that madman had a gun he could have ended the problem real quick while avoiding injury to himself and death and injury to others.If common sense in these issues prevailed we would be in better shape as a nation....dave

[Destructo6]

Now I want to ask one question. What is the difference between those who seek to use the blood of the soldiers of the 507th to sell the Army and new rifle and new lubricant and the Brady Bunch using the blood of the victims of the latest mass shooting to sell more gun control?
That's easy, those here want the troops equipped with a better weapon, so they'll never be defenseless again. Brady ain't like that at all.

[BDM]

The point is a new weapon is not needed like gun control is not needed but the army and brady will use these incidents to further their goals,For the military a new probably hastily put into service weapon system for brady more gun control,2 different situations but the same in the respect they are willing to use misfortune and misinformation to acieve their goals example:just because some soldiers who didnt maintain 3 varieties of weapons experienced malfunctions wich led to some being killed dosent mean we get rid of the M249,and the browning.50 even though everyone points to the M16 as needing replacement when all 3 failed. just because some nut case kills 5 people dosent mean we make the hundreds of thousands of law abiding americans give up their guns,2 different situations but the same basis of justification to satisfy their goals wich is misinformation and lies,the M16 is not problamatic if maintained on a basic level and ordinary citizens arent running around shooting inocent people everyday,thats the point.

[Jeff Timm]

Jim Keenan said: FWIW, I think the AR-18 was superior to either the AR-15/M16 or the AK-47. Any thing short of a truck load of dirt simply does not bother it. Too bad the army didn't hang loose for a while until the "better mousetrap" came along.

The AR-18 was never issued to any military organization in any quantity. It was designed to be a cheap, build at low tech level, alternative to the AR-15. Any superiority to the M-16 is largely imaginary. The Howa commercial versions were functional as Semi-autos, the Sterling produced versions, both commercial and military were pretty grim. The currently available versions are much closer to the M-16, much more expensive to produce than the original AR-18 and I have yet to see one, despite haunting the Little Black Rifle shops and hitting a gun show once a month or so during the season. (OK, I'm missing Berea, Ohio today, but I have this lawn, Mom's lawn and a house to prep for sale..)

The current replacement for the M-16 series by the US Army is the G-36 from H&K, as the direct fire component of the pending new infantry weapon, to be delivered real real soon now.

Geoff
Who still thinks a more powerful round is needed. Whatever happened to 6mm SAW?

[Jeff White]

Geoff,
The HK G36 is NOT a replacement for the M16 in the U.S. Army. Despite what the people who think that anythink HK builds is the best thing going and despite what certain manufacturers are publically saying in an attempt to boost their stock prices, the OICW will not be fielded anytime soon and when it is fielded (if ever) it will probably look substantially different then what you see now. Current plans for fielding (if they can make it work) call for 2 per squad. The same basis of issue we currently use with the M16/M203 grenade launcher combo.

Check out this thread on the Infantry School's forum:

http://www.infantry.army.mil/infforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=106

Jeff

[mattd]

This rifle was designed for the international military market as a replacement for the AR-15 project, which had been sold to the Colt in 1959 by the Armalite's parent company, Fairchild Aircraft and Engine Corp. The AR-18 was designed as a competitor to the AR-15, which could be made at much less expenses and on simplified machinery, with the view to sell the manufacturing licenses for AR-18 to the third world countries. The AR-18 was a really successful design from a technical standpoint, but it come out too late to compete with both officially accepted and adopted AR-15/M16 rifle of American origin and already widespread AK-47 rifle of the Soviet origin.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as36-e.htm

[telewinz]

I have often felt that if the Ruger Mini14 had come out 15 years sooner, it would have been adopted hands down over any other design, it works, it is an American design, has relatively few moving parts, is very sturdy, can be cheaply made, and of course looks just like a scaled down M14. What general or colonel could refuse it?

[BDM]

When ruger starts chrome lining barrels and chambers and starts forging receivers Ill buy one,I know their investment casting is strong but I prefer forged,and back in the 70s the army evaluated the AC556 military/police model,although accepted for police use it didnt hold up to army abuse,I suggest keeping your AR15 clean especially in the desert and I cant understand why the focus is on the 16 when the 507ths M249 and .50 browing were also inoperable due to "LACK OF MAINTENENCE"My father used the garand in korea and he said if you didnt keep up with your rifle or not understanding the environment you operate in will most certainly down the system,he learned when you come out of the cold you must wait for your rifle to get room temperature and wipe off the condensation otherwise when you go back out it freezes and seizes and then he had to piss on his rifle to get it to work again and he didnt realize it untill he was being shot at,the point is knowledge is power when it comes to whatever trade you choose to do especialy a trade in wich your life depends on how well you maintain your weapon,an M16 has to be real dirty to quit on you and if you havent kept up with it it makes it worse.

[Joe Demko]

Garands, Thompson SMG's, and BARS were known to have problems in the deserts of North Africa during WWII. Ditto in the South Pacific where the volcanic dust, which is very fine and abrasive, worked its way into the actions. Also in the South Pacific, the Garand and BAR were put out of action by .30-06 ammo that had been incorrectly loaded with artillery "black powder." Only the bolt action Springfield and the recoil-operated Johnson autorifle managed to continue functioning with that ammo. Gee, where else have we heard about automatic wepons that failed because of incorrectly loaded ammo?
Later, in Korea, the actions of the BAR and Garand were known to freeze up resulting in the need for field-expedient remedies like urinating on the weapon.
Guess we never should have adopted such obviously shoddy POS weapons.
Don't get too wrapped up in the idea that any weapon is totally reliable or soldier-proof, no matter who made it. Also try to avoid the common misconception, seen in every war we've ever fought, that whatever the other side's grunts are carrying is better than what our grunts are carrying. The "throw down an M-16 and pick up an AK" story is just the "throw down a Tommy Gun and pick up an MP-40" story redux.

[BDM]

Thank you GOLGO-13 for the much needed common sense,Im with ya.:D

[mattd]

But with complicated parts and a under powered gas system, no wonder they might jam more often. It may be a good gun but I don't think its good enough. But I doubt they will change the rifles now because it will show that the m-16 was a failure. You shouldn't have to clean your rifle every time you get a little dirt or sand on it. btw I have seen troops in Iraq and Vietnam looking over ditches with ak-47s.

[Jeff White]

btw I have seen troops in Iraq and Vietnam looking over ditches with ak-47s

It has been reported in a couple after action reports coming from the Marines that AKs were used to supplement the pistols that Satff NCOs, officers and vehicle crews were issued...because there were not enough M16s or M4s to go around.

Matt, what is your personal experience with the M16?

Jeff

[Byron]

Matt, we cleaned our 16's not because a little dirt got in them but as a matter of regular duty. There were periods in the Highlands when we went over a week without cleaning as we were on the move so much and contact frequent. All I can say is that when I was in Nam (68-69). The weapon never failed me. Any infantryman or for that matter any personel in combat should keep their weapon clean. Yes, there were men in Nam that used an AK but in my time period the problems were resolved. The blame for the 16 was The Army's idiotic fault. Byron

[BDM]

Hey matt the M249 and .50 browning they had also failed,I guess those need to be replaced too,You are mis informed all 3 weapon systems were down,And like others asked what is your combat experience with the M16?I would like to thank the real veterans who offered their input on this subject,your opinion on the M16 is worth more than any armchair commandos opinion myself included.BDM out.

[telewinz]

IMHO the M16 design still continues to have a serious problem, it NEEDS a "backward assist" instead of the foreward assist. Their is no good primary method to extract a jammed cartridge from the chamber, but you sure can jam it in further.

Grasping the charging handle and slamming the buttstock works pretty well most often but NOT all the time. It happened to me over 30 years ago with the "new and improved" M16A1, the foreward assist made the problem worse and turned me into an observer. It wasn't bad ammo or a dirty rifle, just a poor design. At least with a 100 year old Trapdoor Springfield I could have used a knife to pry the cartridge out!

The M2 has a long history of outstanding reliability, dirty or otherwise as does the AK47. The M16 design has a "documented" history of un-reliability. What other modern battle rifle shares this infamy? I'm not anti-M16, I own two of them and they sure have their merits, its a great "asphalt jungle" rifle. But reliability is not one of its merits (compared to other great military rifles), it needs to be pampered. Could you imagine the M16 being used in the trench warfare of WW1!

When the Iraq troops were running away it was not because of that "terror of the battlefield" the M16(or M4 or AR15) it was the M1 Abrams, M2 Bradley, rockets, shells, and bombs. In an equal battle (no tanks, aircraft, ect.) I'd just wait for the first sandstorm and attack with my AK47 and see who does the running then.:uhoh: Flame on.

[BDM]

Like I said the 507ths .50 and M249 also failed, and I think the israelis might have a different opinion on the 16 they use it in the desert with no problems, try www.isayeret.com some of their rifles are still in use after 30 years.Most problems with the rifle can be atributed to the user and spec ops personnel will tell you that,I have a friend who was a former army ranger,he never had problems with his rifle as long as he cleaned it,those in the sevice who want a weapon change are the ones sucking up to the potential contractors so they can have a cushy job after their career with the military,furthering their own agenda,just like the marine corps brass who didnt want the M4 for general issue so they bitched and bitched till they got their flat top full size version of the M4 so give me a break Im sure through the years there has been a lot of documented malfunctions so give us all a break down and tell us what was atributed to each malfunction and Ill bet the majority were do to poor maintenence and lets exclude the vietnam era because that was an ammo,no proper training ,no cleaning equipment problem,except for seals who got the first ever M16s due to the fact at that time seal teams had an open purchase policy to get whatever arms they wanted,their failure rates were no ways near what the army and marines experienced and they had the A1,why?because the navy is nurotic about maintenence and they cleaned their weapons so the bad ammo wasnt a problem and they knew the M16 was not self cleaning as advertised,so they maintained their weapons just like the stoner 63 ,rejected as to maintence intensive to be adopted by the marines but the seals loved it,the info source on the weapons I got from a book on the history of weapons used by the UDTs and later seals called "Special Warfare Special Weapons".From the failures you described did you jam the cartride home with the forward assist after the round refused to chamber fully or was your rifle made by harrington and richardson who was noturious for quality control problems as were other manufacturers,I would put my semi auto pre ban bushmaster carbine against any AK,I know how my rifle performs in crap,and also have the skills to keep it running or I wouldnt have had as much fun at blackwater as I did,I dont have combat experience but ive had my rifle wet and muddy while shooting on a blackwater range that was 5 to 10 inches submerged in water when I went,my rifle functioned fine and I also cleaned it after the 600 rounds a day I put through it,cleaned and lubed once a day no problems,and im sure a desert is harsh on all weapons if not maintained.

[telewinz]

Again, the M16 needs to be pampered to have any reliability, Bushmaster or not. Its a problem with the design not the maker. I am aware of the history and causes of the M16's failures. The AK47 will function just fine with any dirty powder short of black powder (that would be an interesting test for reliability, any load data available?:scrutiny: ) Be advised, don't shoot that cheap .223 ammo unless you have a SAR, it would be too time consuming to clean your Bushy every 100 rounds or so.:D

[BDM]

Actualy all I shoot is wolf fo4r blasting ammo its what I took to blackwater, and ive gone so far 1500 rounds with out a cleaning and lubing 1 time before I shoot and thats because all I brought to the range was 1500,at blackwater I went through 600 rounds a day if your ARs the 2 you own are only going 100 rounds before you have to clean it its either cheap made rifles, parts or did you build a franken AR out of all kinds of parts,the canadien company Diemaco recently did MRBF mean rounds before failure test to the c7 their version of the M16,it went 15000 rounds before a malfunction, just do a search for the company and go to the site,and alot of problems with the M16 then and the colt M4 as made now can be attributed to quality control.Yes the design is a dirty one but its not a problem if you do routine maintenence. It takes me 15 to 20 minutes to clean mine well, and under combat conditions a simple remove the carrier wipe out the upper re lubricate the carrier and bolt and it should keep it going,most people are lazy that is why they buy AKs. Id like to see you chamber a round in an AK let the bolt carrier rust shut"wich can happen even if that rifle is not kept up in a wet environment" and then try to fire it before kicking the bolt loose,and that AK wont be worth the $15 dollars it is now on the third world market,M1s had problems in the desert in ww2 when they werent maintained ,I beleive the army made a training film about it ,you hate the 16 fine but its not the same made weapon it was 30 years ago,unless you buy a colt M4 clone with the higher than spec removable handle so to make it more unique so they can be the only ones that make it.My buddy just got one and the buffer was plastic,so much for good quality.and it was sealed in plastic dripping in oil when it was taken out,And I know its not the dealer cause he gave my buddy a proper buffer fealing bad the way it came seeing it was $150 DOLLARS MORE THAN A BUSHMASTER.:DAnd I can imagine the M16 in world war 1,more closed to out side mud and debris,more time to clean it right cause your in a trench,if its the M4 more hand and manuverable in a trench,and cause every one has a "trench broom"you can just dig your trench to the enemy and hose him down,then with an aimpoint your the only army with night shooting capability and when its all said and done the worst weapons of the war will still be anything the french used for small arms.

[mattd]

No more m-16 for the Israelis, they are going to phase out the m-16 with their Tavor assault rifle.

http://www.spacewar.com/2003/030722161853.krlr1zso.html

http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/tavor/guide.htm

[BDM]

Even omn the israeli site it lists the problems with the tavor now and they are already on the tavor 2 variant,M16 is gonna be around a long time.

[mattd]

Yea like slow mag change, didn't the m-16 have problems when it came out????

[BDM]

Cost and no iron sights also were problems and bragging its the worlds best assault rifle that remains to be seen when it goes into hard service. and yes the M16 did,but with reasonable maintenence it works fine is still leathal and still has the fastest mag change of any rifle.And with the marines just getting their new M4 accessorie type flattop only in a full size the M16 isnt going anywhere any time soon.

[mattd]

It has iron sights now.

http://www.defense-update.com/news/62302tavor.htm

For several years the IDF evaluated the Tavor against the M-16 M4. The two weapons recently completed extensive field evaluations with special forces as well elite infantry units, such as the Givati Brigade. Following the conclusion of these tests, the IDF made its decision. The evaluations were very positive and overall, Tavor proved to be significantly more accurate and reliable compared to the M4, and became the favorable sidearm by the majority of the infantrymen participated in the tests. The weapon proved to be more comfortable to operate, and more accurate in instinctive fire, as the natural carrying position – an inherent advantage of the rear center of gravity, derived by the compact bull-pup design.

[BDM]

they are fielding it because of pressure from IMI to field a domestic design lets see if this thing holds up or if it ends up like the GALIL,an insignificant 3rd line weapon thats almost never carried and that was an IMI domestic design too as far as better comort better instinctive shooting number 1 there is no substitute for a weapon shouldered and fired,with both eyes open point shooting this way is much more accurate than instinctive hip shooting,if so then im sure they would have taught me at blackwater,maybe they should test the tavor there,and feed it wolf lets see how tough this thing is.and the M16 has the best iron sites in the world,when the tavor goes throgh its baptism of fire and evolves into a design with iron sights then maybe we can call it a bonafide infantry weapon,bullpups have lousy ergonomics and slow reloads,Ill take the M16 the worlds best human engineered,most accurate,easily and quickly serviced general issue rifle in the world.

[mattd]

Ill take the M16 the worlds best human engineered,most accurate,easily and quickly serviced general issue rifle in the world.

The m-16 would be about my 30th choice. Reliability not accuracy gets the highest points in my book because your not going to be able to use that accuracy if you can't get the thing to fire.

[BDM]

It is reliable maybe your just to lazy or dont have the skills,experience or knowledge of the weapon system to keep it going,maybe it has more problems in the desert but so does every thing else if its not maintained,I assume your praise of the tavor and hate of the M16 comes from some hands on experience with either weapon system,So I guess the israelis have been faking it with the M16 for the last 30 years,Every one thought the steyr aug was the best and most reliable when it came out,and as they got a little mileage on them they started having problems to,Just like the G36 isnt the miracle replace all weapon,you are obviously misinformed that maintenence company had all its weapons fail,an M249 and a browing .50,The M16 works just fine if you clean it at least once a day,go to the miltec site you will the see the email from an inspecting colonel at the 507th,the weapons didnt fail because of bad design or lubricant,they failed because they were not maintained and a good soldier takes care of that wich takes care of him,my personal opinon is based on experience while yours seems to be based on "the beleive everything you read and pass it off as the word of god attitude"150,000 others are using the M16 with no problems,in a war zone laziness and complacency and not paying attention to detail will get you killed,if you have first hand experience of why the M16 is so bad state the facts with proof and stop quoting my personal opinions though they are based on experience with the rifle in all kinds of conditions.:rolleyes:The prevailing attitude by some at times seems to be "the more posts I have the more I know than everyone else"wich isnt so,so whats your experience?under what conditions?and with both weapons,I assume the way you talk you have first hand experience with both weapon systems?Then maybe you could educate me on the M16 s design flaw based on its function and a design that time is just catching up to now after almost 40 years.

[Byron]

BDM, well put. What unit were you in and when? My experience was 68-69.
Byron

[BDM]

I was in 87 and 88 2 years I went through regular basic and did the rest of the time with a gaurd unit the 26th yankee division up north here I went to shool the same time I was in,although it was a weekend a month the two weeks a year you would get to see different places going on traing cycles with regular army units,it was fun and I got to shoot alot of things I would never get to otherwise it was a good experience and I wish, looking back that I did it full time and it was the best thing for me out of high school at 17,so I have no combat experience such as you probably have so you would probably know the M16 even more than me in those years,my dad is a korean vet,I originaly went in because my father always said in his day even when there wasnt a war you had to do your service so it was a way for me to serve and contribute and still get an education and be close to the family,still I wish I did it full time,now Im 32 hapilly married,a few pounds heavier and work for the town I live in,the good thing was I got my first AR in 86 so I already knew a little about the rifle.

[Byron]

BDM, I used the 16 in 1968-69 when with the 4th INF Div in Nam. My mos was 11B. I had an earlier post on this thread about it. Your Dad is right, we have an obligation to the Nation. Byron

[BDM]

Hey the 4th inf thats the "ivy division"I beleive,11 bravo "follow me"as my dad would say,the infantry is the way to go,I didnt mind helicopter travel too much,I prefered to walk plus my dad was an infantry man 24th inf 34th regt,in korea whaen he first went in a couple of years before the war he was in the 69th of ww2 fame then they were disbanded,like the 26th eventualy was,God bless you byron if not for guys like my dad and you and those who went before you and come after , I dont think I could have handled speaking German,Japanese,Im italian so at least thats covered,korean,vietnamese and arabic even though I served part time I wish I had done more,it was a great experience taught me to stand on my own two feet and be responsible:D

[Byron]

The 4th Inf is the "IVY DIV". Thanks for your comments. My regards to your Dad. He saw some tough action with those units. Byron

[BDM]

He hasnt eaten chineese food for 50 years,wont drive in my hyundai even though I tried telling him it was south korean made,I keep trying to tell him chineese food here is americanized,but at 72 hes not going to change his thinking at this point, although he likes that pickled cabbage,they call it kim chi I tried it once..just once ,and same with you the 4th saw alot of action also,its one of the great army divisions ..take care byron...dave:D

[Feanaro]

If i was in Iraq I could pick up a ak-47 and ditch the m-16.

Ever heard an AK fire? It has a distinctive sound and that sound tends to attract bullets. While it might not be much of an issue in the day in a wide open desert, at night or in a dense forest(etc) anything that sounds like an enemy weapon often draws bullets. I wasn't there, I can't say from experiance but think for a moment.

You are humping through the jungle and you hear an AK blaring. You see the tracers and follow them back to the source(Or hone in on the sound, etc). But wait, one of your buddies has ditched his "POS M16" for an AK. It might be him... do you fire, risking that although it might be an enemy it could also be your buddy? Congratulations, you have just put your entire squad in danger by making them THINK about the situation. Thinking takes a second, maybe three or even five. A lot of things can happen in a few seconds.

Or in another scenario, you are carrying an AK in a night fight, during the Gulf War(I or II). You see a group of enemies and you open fire. There is another squad on a hill and they see those tracers(Or hear you, whatever) and assume it's an enemy. They light your arse up and perhaps your squad up too. It might not happen, it may never happen. But is it a risk you are willing to put on your squad?

As for the M16 being unreliable I have no experiance there. So no uncomment.