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

Status
Not open for further replies.

mdsteele

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2003
Messages
251
Location
Sandy Ridge, NC.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../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 prone to jamming in Iraq's dusty environment, M-4 carbines are now widely issued to American troops.


The M-4 is essentially a shortened M-16A2, with a clipped barrel, partially retractable stock and a trigger mechanism modified to fire full-auto instead of three-shots bursts. It was first introduced as a personal defense weapon for clerks, drivers and other non-combat troops.


"Then it was adopted by the Special Forces and Rangers, mainly because of its shorter length," said Col. Kurt Fuller, a battalion commander in Iraq and an authority on firearms.


Fuller said studies showed that most of the combat in Iraq has been in urban environments and that 95 percent of all engagements have occurred at ranges shorter than 100 yards, where the M-4, at just over 30 inches long, works best.


Still, experience has shown the carbines also have deficiencies. The cut-down barrel results in lower bullet velocities, decreasing its range. It also tends to rapidly overheat and the firing system, which works under greater pressures created by the gases of detonating ammunition, puts more stress on moving parts, hurting its reliability.


Consequently, the M-4 is an unlikely candidate for the rearming of the U.S. Army. It is now viewed as an interim solution until the introduction of a more advanced design known as the Objective Individual Combat Weapon, or OICW.


There is no date set for the entry into service of the OICW, but officers in Iraq say they expect its arrival sooner than previously expected because of the problems with the M-16 and the M-4.


"Iraq is the final nail in the coffin for the M-16," said a commander who asked not to be identified.


The current version of the M-16 is a far cry from the original, which troops during the Vietnam War criticized as fragile, lacking power and range, and only moderately accurate. At the time, a leading U.S. weapons expert even recommended that American soldiers discard their M-16s and arm themselves with the Kalashnikov AK-47 rifle used by their Vietcong enemy.


Although the M16A1 — introduced in the early 1980s — has been heavily modernized, experts say it still isn't as reliable as the AK-47 or its younger cousin, the AK-74. Both are said to have better "knockdown" power and can take more of a beating on the battlefield.
 
"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."

...but...it's just a shorter M16! This has to be one of the most poorly researched articles I've read.
 
M-16 Rifle May Be on Way Out of U.S. Army ?

So what do all of you think about this article?
Most of us here have heard of the OICW project. Will the "Future Rifle" be here sooner than later?
One of the versions that most of us have seen on TV, etc. seems like a step backwards to me. Opinions?
Here's a link to the article:
M-16 nearing the end of it's service?
 
The author fails to mention that many of the M16A2s are being replaced by M16A4s which also have 20" barrels :what: .

I think that SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Writer, knows less about military small arms then I do about microsurgery....

Oh yeah..the AK74 has knockdown power now....

I think the writer spent some time hanging with some troopies and took notes on all the military small arms urban legends he heard. Somebody needs to tell whoever he was embedded with that they are slacking off. they left out the one about how the M16 bullet tumbles in flight :uhoh:.

My question is, are there editors at the Associated Press?

Jeff
 
I think short barrels will be the final nail in the coffin for .223's effectiveness.

Unless they army is smart enough to adopt a bullpup design with a 20" barrel and an AK style gas system.
 
Jeff, you know better. The editors of the AP are more ignorant than the writer himself! Now, all they have to do is pick any of the dozens of writers for popular gun rags like Guns & Ammo or Shooting Times and say, "Hey, write us a story on gun stuff in the Army." They'd get a well-written, well-researched masterpiece compared to this bird-dropping collector. What crap. Doesn't he know the XM-29 is DEAD... just in case anybody didn't know. It's Dead, the XM29 is dead. IT's DEAD. One more time for the AP this time... THE XM29 IS DEAD. sorry, Jeff, I couldn't resist.:evil:
 
The OICW is a siamese fraternal twin. Both weapons are (with a little modification) fine for their own applications. Unfortunately, for a given application you've got this entirely unsuitable growth attached (the other weapon).

The grenade launcher part is for long range, and has a useless bulky 11" .223 pistol permanently attached. Fire the .223 at long range and you'll likely miss.

The rifle is for short range, and has a useless bulky grenade launcher attached. Fire a 20mm grenade at close range and you'll kill yourself.

Arm everyone with something compact and suitable for CQB, and have 1-2 people lug the cannon separately.

OICW won't replace the M4. Maybe the FN2000 (in varying configuration depending on user), but not that bulky POS OICW.
 
I just tried to delete the thread I made on this... Sorry.

One of the OICW rifles has the .223/5.56 besides that huge round attched to it(20mm?), That does'nt seem to be the answer too.
How about a FN P90 for tanker crews and such? Yeah, it's a smaller round, but a much smaller weapon too. Is the data on the 5.7 MM true?

I too, remember reading that the USMC adopted the M16A4.
Add to that the other "info" in this piece...What the!?
Who wrote this "report"?
But... do any of you think our people could benefit form a larger caliber round? Bring the .308 back in huge numbers maybe?
 
Badger...If he'd have read the XM8 thread he'd have known that :D

Then there is this gem;

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.

M4 confused with M4A1. I wonder where he heard about the original fielding plan, which was scrapped in about 1988? Of course no one knew the term personal defense weapon back then.

On second thought he must have done fact verification in the mainstream gunrags...Must have missed all those Chuck Taylor articles where he swore we were changing twist rate to 1/9?

Jeff
 
i don't know

I think replacing the m16 may have some merit. No weapon design lasts forever except maybe a ma duece and the ak.

The m16 weapons system has been plauged by problems real and imaginary since day one. It is a sophisticated instrument. IMHO simple is better. I'm not advocating going back to bolt actions.

I believe that a new system can be developed that is better. One that is simple and rugged like an ak and retains the wiz bang gadget factor of the m16.

If you are poking fun at the 5.45 IMHO it is better designed than the 5.56 for ball ammo. But I like the .243 over both.

Regardless, I bet he is right. I think the bad press that the 16 has ahd during this war will break the camels back.

my 2 scents -bevr
 
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.
That's funny. About 6 months ago I was reading articles about how the M-16 didn't have enough range in Afganistan and Iraq. I thought the M-14 was making a comeback and optics were now standard equipment on the M-16? :rolleyes:
 
Yup. On an ammo detail, I came across pallets of 5.56mm 77-grain Black Hills ammo, designed specifically for long range use.

As far as optics- M4's getting them, too. All the arms we had in our groovy new IBCT Battalion had optics attached- most of them M68 Aimpoint red dots.
 
So someone thinks the answer to the M16 being too big is to replace it with something bigger, bulkier, less accurate at long range, awkward to move, and lethal to the user at close range? Right.

How about, say, the FN2000:
ARFN2000.jpg


Features functionality equivalent to the M16, smaller, flexible, and makes a grenade launcher unobtrusive and optional instead of overwhelming and unremovable?
 
Too bad the shorter barrels (not to mention FA) on all these replacement options violate NFA '34. I guess I'll let it slide if they give me a $200 tax rebate for every rifle each time one is issued to a soldier.
 
How about a .243 using an improved AK mechanism? Now that would be a rifle!

The problem being the .243 case is the same diameter as the .308.

So now you've got a little lighter ammo than ..308, but it's just as big....
 
Well...if by ".243", one meant 6mm PPC, I do agree it would be an improvement!
 
I don't really see the point of replacing the M-16 with a shorter M-16, or with an M-16 of the same size, or with a 17 pound behemoth.
If they want something effective up close but smaller, they are going to have to either go to a larger bullet or a bullpup.
Go to a larger bullet and you need more powder to get the range.
Which leads us back to the 7.62x51.

I think that they could solve the M-16's reliability troubles with a different upper that would just snap right on to existing guns. Something with an AK style gas piston.
Instant upgrade.
Then you come up with something like a single shot 20mm shotgun that mounts under it.
It could swing to either side for loading.
Add optics with a PSO style rangefinder for slinging in those smart 20mm airbursts and you are set.

Not too much weight, not too much cost, you still get to use current ammo, and you get something that would eliminate the M-16's worst deficiency.
What's not to love?
 
They're saying that the M-16 is too long?:scrutiny: I dont suppose they realize that the Germans were using rifles that were taller than some of their troops (especially with the bayo on it) 60 and 80 years ago, do they? And they weren't being transported in 8' wide Humvees, they were instead in VW Things and old Benz trucks!

I swear, some people have nary a friggin clue about history. 40" too long. Jeeze.:rolleyes:
 
call me nuts, but I think the US gov't should pay notice to the AR in the game "Unreal II" much of the design is quite possible with today's technology and the design would make for a very versitile weapon.

EG: A gun that Uses Caseless Bullets that can be fired in Simi-auto, Full-Auto or a 5 bullet Bundle (much like a grinade).

i'm certan that with enough research something would be more than just a possibillity.

just my $0.02.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top