Worst currently-fielded military rifle in the world?

[Jeff White]

Tony Williams said;

If you're interviewing soldiers about something on the basis of their experience, all of the evidence they give is anecdotal! The only evidence pertaining to this which is not anecdotal are scientifically devised and controlled tests in appropriate conditions, such as the British carried out on the L85A2 and other weapons (see the article on the SA80 on my website).

I would think that statistics complied from post combat interviews of hundreds of Soldiers and marines would be more scientifically valid then those derived from one or a few individual accounts. The purpose of those studies was to indentify trends, both good and bad so taht immediate fixes could be made. You're right though, the only scientific studies are the controlled tests that for some unknown reason almost always fail to find all the flaws in a system. It's only after a weapon has been in the hands of the trrops for a while that we can really start judging how well it's designed and built. Soldiers will devise ways of breaking things that a scientist could never dream of.

If the AR family is so good, why does the US Army want to replace it with weapons which offer no advantages in size, weight or adaptability?

Who says they do? We have always tested new designs. The Springfield was adopted in 1903, by the end of WWI we were looking to replace it. The Garand was adopted in 1937 IIRC and by 1945 we were looking to replace it. The M14 was adopted in 1957 or 58 and was abandoned before it could ever replace the M1 throughout the force. The M16 was adopted as an interim weapon in 1964, it was only supposed to be in service until the OICW's father, the SPIW was ready. Work continued on the SPIW while the M16 was being fielded. By the mid 1970s we were looking at other rifles to replace the M16. We settled on modifying the M16A1 into the M16A2, adopted by the USMC in 1982 and the US Army in 1985. By 1988 or 89, we were deep into the Advanced Combat Rifle. Sometime in the mid 90s we started back down the SPIW road with a similar project called the OICW. It was concluded that none of the ACR candidates offered a sufficient increase in capabilities to justify the cost of replacing our current weapon. I'll bet you dinner that when all of this shakes out, the bean counters will decide that the cost of re-equipping the US Armed Forces with whatever new weapon they come up with, isn't worth the cost, because the improvements are almost immeasurable. All of these new wonder rifles are nothing more then a gas operated 5.56mm rifle. We already have a 5.56mm gas operated rifle that works fine. I predict that the M16 will soldier on until technology comes up with a significant improvement over what we have.

BTW many people on this forum owe me from the XM8 bet..I was right on that one .

MadMike,
The Army had the M16A4 first. My son had them in Infantry OSUT a year before the USMC adopted it as their standard weapon.

Jeff

 

[MrAcheson]

I would think that statistics complied from post combat interviews of hundreds of Soldiers and marines would be more scientifically valid then those derived from one or a few individual accounts.

They are but you also have to take into account collective wisdom that may have no empirical basis in fact. For instance you will get a lot soldiers and marines in Iraq that say "I don't like the M16, the M14 is better."

"Do you have any experience with the M16/M4?"

"Yes I carry one, it jams too much and lacks knockdown power." *Writes down reliability and stopping power concerns.*

"Do you have any experience with the M14?"

"Well, not personally, but the special forces guys have them and they shoot a bigger bullet so they must be better." *Writes down no personal experience and takes anything else he says about this with a grain of salt.*

A lot of grass-is-always-greener analysis comes out of these sorts of interviews.

 

[madmike]

A lot of grass-is-always-greener analysis comes out of these sorts of interviews.

Anyone want to bet that when a replacement does come along:

It has a few bugs.

Those bugs will be exaggerated.

People will long for the old, reliable M16.

Some of those will be the same ones who hate it now.

Anyone?

But we can fix all the problems with THIS:

http://www.cobb50.com/mcr4001.JPG .338 Lapua AR, anyone?

 

[KriegHund]

Anyone want to bet that when a replacement does come along:

It has a few bugs.

Those bugs will be exaggerated.

People will long for the old, reliable M16.

Some of those will be the same ones who hate it now.

You hit the nail on the head there.

Your my new hero

 

[Gewehr98]

"Back when I was on USAF Honor Guard"...

Or was that Band Camp, ala' American Pie?

Actually, as a member of the base Honor Guard in my early Air Force career, we had oodles of M1 Garands to work with. Some were cantankerous, but we were blessed with lots of spare rifles to cannibalize, and boxes of spare bolts, trigger groups, stocks, blank firing adaptors, and so forth.

Suffice it to say, those Honor Guard rifles were tired old girls. I spent a lot of time with headspace gauges and spare bolts keeping them running, and was proud of the fact that any funerals details our Honor Guard traveled to got a proper salute with a minimum of misfires or embarrassing "clicks".

BTW, the folks on my Honor Guard flights learned right quick that M1 Thumb is self-critiquing. Sharp troops, they seldom made the same mistake twice, much like their predecessors in combat during WWII and Korea.

 

[madmike]

Or was that Band Camp, ala' American Pie?

Actually, as a member of the base Honor Guard in my early Air Force career, we had oodles of M1 Garands to work with. Some were cantankerous, but we were blessed with lots of spare rifles to cannibalize, and boxes of spare bolts, trigger groups, stocks, blank firing adaptors, and so forth.

No spares, and we sent some of them back to Rock Island for a second round, and our armorers worked them over, too. Didn't help much.

Yeah, only one bash of the thumb. But it's the kind of thing that can get you killed if it happens at the wrong time.

 

[Tony Williams]

I'll bet you dinner that when all of this shakes out, the bean counters will decide that the cost of re-equipping the US Armed Forces with whatever new weapon they come up with, isn't worth the cost, because the improvements are almost immeasurable.

Very likely (and I wouldn't argue with that) but an additional factor this time is the need to replace the M249s currently in service, so they're looking for a family of weapons rather than just a rifle. Of course, if the process takes so long that they have to buy a large bundle of new M249s anyway, that will probably kill the project!

Anyone want to bet that when a replacement does come along:

It has a few bugs.

Those bugs will be exaggerated.

People will long for the old, reliable M16.

Some of those will be the same ones who hate it now.

Inevitably - 'twas ever thus

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[USMC Tanker]

I love the AR family...at the range, it's fun to shoot, accurate, reliable, and a wide range of accessories available.
I don't know how many of you have actually had trigger time on the M16 (A2, A4, or M4) in the field, but I will tell you one thing that is fact, not opinion...the M16 family is an extremely prissy rifle.
I carried mine in Iraq, and it was constantly plagued with jamming and double feeds. And I don't even want to start a discussion about the 5.56 round (or .223 varmint round).
I will say, that in an ideal environment (a combat environment free of water, sand, dust, or mud), the M16 will do just fine. But in the real world, it is impossible to keep an M16 clean in an environment with sandstorms, powder-like sand, dust, and sustained firing. We cleaned our rifles at every available opportunity, but within minutes, it was just as dirty.
I have never carried the M14 in the field, but with friends in the special forces, scout/sniper teams, etc...I have never heard an ill word about the M14. 7.62, more power, more accurate, more range, better penetration, better ballistics. Perhaps we need to look back at the old days of the 7.62.

 

[ChiefPilot]

I will tell you one thing that is fact, not opinion...the M16 family is an extremely prissy rifle.

Uh, dude - I think that's an opinion.

 

[madmike]

I love the AR family...at the range, it's fun to shoot, accurate, reliable, and a wide range of accessories available.
I don't know how many of you have actually had trigger time on the M16 (A2, A4, or M4) in the field, but I will tell you one thing that is fact, not opinion...the M16 family is an extremely prissy rifle.
I carried mine in Iraq, and it was constantly plagued with jamming and double feeds. And I don't even want to start a discussion about the 5.56 round (or .223 varmint round).
I will say, that in an ideal environment (a combat environment free of water, sand, dust, or mud), the M16 will do just fine. But in the real world, it is impossible to keep an M16 clean in an environment with sandstorms, powder-like sand, dust, and sustained firing. We cleaned our rifles at every available opportunity, but within minutes, it was just as dirty.
I have never carried the M14 in the field, but with friends in the special forces, scout/sniper teams, etc...I have never heard an ill word about the M14. 7.62, more power, more accurate, more range, better penetration, better ballistics. Perhaps we need to look back at the old days of the 7.62.

As I said, I've had very few problems. USMC reports from Vietnam show 95% of the troops supported the weapon, and that is from the same study critiquing the problems it DID have. A majority of the troops who have used it have had no problems. So "Impossible" is inaccurate. Your "fact" _is_ largely opinion.

Excessive cleaning of the weapon is part of your problem. Clean it. Close it. Leave it the @#$% alone. I've shot M16s (not A1s) so dirty the chrome bolt carrier looked parkerized. I've put 1500 rounds through hot in one morning on a dusty range in cold weather. It took 3 days in acetone to get the carbon off the bolt. Three malfunctions in that crappy Beta C-mag. None with factory mags (Double feeds are a common indication of bent magazine lips, btw. Did you change your mags?). I've used one buried in sand, in a thick, sludgy stream, in mud, in weather so cold the cyclic rate was _60_ rounds per minute because the oil was congealed and acted as a glue, but it still fired.

If everyone in a unit is having similar ongoing problems, then look at your armorer.

Your comments on the M14 are not supportable, since you admit you've never carried one in the field. "Better" ballistics depends on the target. More accurate is not supportable; the M16's effective range exceeds that of the M14, per USMC manuals. (460 meters M14 vs 550 meters M16A2) (M14 data, FMFM 6-5, Marine Rifle Squad, 1969). If you want to compare the heavily modified M14s being used by elite troops against stock M16s in the hands of common soldiers, your comparison is not valid. Let me modify my AR to an extreme and we'll compare.

And I just found this on the venerable .303:

Everyone that is, aside from those who actually had cause to shoot anyone with this new round and rifle. Good accuracy, yes. Flat trajectory, no doubt about it. Amazing firepower too, from this new magazine fed repeater. This was just as well, as those hit by it frequently failed to acknowledge the fact, and regularly took multiple hits before actually ceasing in the attempt to rearrange one’s internal anatomy with various sharp and unpleasant edged ethnic implements. In the 1890’s the British Army was engaged in a number of operations in the Indian and Afghan theatre, and this lack of effectiveness of the new ammunition was a cause of major concern. The previous Martini-Henry rifle with its 480 grain soft lead bullet had been proven time and time again, but this new rifle just wasn’t up to snuff. When small British detachments found themselves outnumbered ten to one against fanatically courageous opponents who took and gave no quarter, the problem was a serious one. Wound ballistics was a poorly understood science in those days, but even 1970 fps was insufficient for such a smallbore, relatively heavy, round nosed projectile to be effective as a military round. Penetration was fantastic - even up to and including an elephant’s skull - but it was too good on human targets, and energy transmission was virtually nil. Sub - 2000 fps speeds were too low for effective hydrostatic shock and temporary cavitation, all of which the British trooper was finding out the hard way on the field of battle.

http://www.african-hunter.com/303_british.htm
Gee. Sounds like a total POS.

No, it's not. But those are "reports from the field" by "The men who would know." Any other .303 shooters (I have a nice original) want to defer to the expertise? I'm sure I can find expert battlefield opinion on any weapon you care to name.

Interestingly, the fix for the .303 was a frangible bullet that tumbled. Gee, sounds like one of the complaints about the M16, eh? Not enough power, so try to diddle with the bullet. Only one problem: it works.

The 5.56 is here. It is approaching 50 years of service. We are not "revisiting" the 7.62 for a standard infantry weapon. No relevant military in the world is. Accept it. Deal with it. It is most probable that within 20 years we will be switching to a 4.8 or so mm caliber. We MAY switch to 6.8mm, but it's quite unlikely. The trend in every projectile, from atlatl darts to arrows to howitzers to nukes to rifles is SMALLER. We are unlikely to adopt the flechettes of the SPIW because they cannot penetrate armor and lack accuracy, but the final caliber in rifle development will be smaller than 5.56mm.

See my comment above on troops longing for the old days.

Hmm...didn't clean the AR last week. Wonder how it will shoot tomorrow? Guess we'll find out.

I'm actually VERY interested in a stress test, if someone will bring an M1A and a Garand. I'll bring a stock AR. Dust, sand, mud, water, algae and lots of shooting. We'll see which holds up best.

My bet is those open-topped weapons won't do as well as people imagine they will.

Anyone want to bring one along to compare?

 

[shootinstudent]

My bet is those open-topped weapons won't do as well as people imagine they will.

What's it like to shoot an open topped gun in the rain? If water collects up on the bolt, does that go into your face?

 

[madmike]

By the way, the Special Forces LOVED the AR in the early 60s. Maybe the M14 also works well for them because...gee, they're the SPECIAL FORCES?

Nah, must be the rifle. Not the man.

 

[Gewehr98]

Umm, why not ask the folks who did that day in and day out?

I'm actually VERY interested in a stress test, if someone will bring an M1A and a Garand. I'll bring a stock AR. Dust, sand, mud, water, algae and lots of shooting. We'll see which holds up best.

My bet is those open-topped weapons won't do as well as people imagine they will.

Anyone want to bring one along to compare?

Why not ask the members here who are WWII and Korean War veterans, using their M1 Garands in atrocious conditions to win a war in both the European and Pacific theaters? One would think if the open-topped John C. Garand design was so susceptible to jamming via contamination from above that history would note the dismal failure of the system, right?

 

[madmike]

Why not ask the members here who are WWII and Korean War veterans, using their M1 Garands in atrocious conditions to win a war in both the European and Pacific theaters? One would think if the open-topped John C. Garand design was so susceptible to jamming via contamination from above that history would note the dismal failure of the system, right?

Because I'm hearing from many of them who've never shot an AR, and from many M16 users who have never shot one of those, as to why those are better.

I propose a side-by-side test. I've already put word out for photographers. I intend to publish this in a major publication to settle it once and for all. I obviously have a bias, so it seems fair to stand up and take the heat, if any.

I personally have had more trouble with Garands than anything else. Though some I've handled were flawless. I have seen bad M16s. So I want to try a couple of each under "controlled" dirt and compare.

As follows:

I will provide an AR15. I need a Garand, AK, M1A and anything else anyone cares to submit.

They will be placed in a cabinet of blasted sand (Not directly blasted, and we can tape the finish to protect them) for an amount of time, then taken to the range and shot.

They will be brought back uncleaned and dunked into a gunky ditch, then taken to the range and shot.

They will be rolled in the mud at the edge of a cornfield, then taken to the range and shot.

Cleaning will be limited to the absolute minimum needed to keep one of the weapons shooting, then will be increased until each subsequent weapon shoots. This will determine which is most durable in that environment.

Additional oil may be freely used, since it's readily available to the troops and doesn't require any actual stripping to use. Beyond that, blowing out the receiver, dusting it with a brush, etc, will be the preferred minimums. I'd like to avoid cleaning rods, solvents, etc as much as possible.

So, who's willing to help with weapons or knows someone who can, and I'll need witnesses and test shooters so I can't be accused of playing favorites? I'd ideally like two of each.

Or do you think we can get a mfr/dealer interested in helping for the glory?

Bring it on.

BTW: I think we can safely say the SMLE is NOT a contender for worst. Anyone have anything bad to say about it? I don't. Love the damned thing. As far as bolt guns go, it's hard to beat.

 

[Tony Williams]

The issue of selecting the optimum military rifle calibre seems to me to be one of percentages. At one extreme, you get individuals who carry on fighting (for a while) despite sustaining multiple body hits from large-calibre small arms. At the other extreme, a perfectly-placed .22LR bullet will drop a man instantly.

However, these situations are rare exceptions at the extreme ends of the curve of normal distribution. Within the main body of that curve, the likelihood of a man going down quickly from a solid body hit goes up with increasing bullet calibre and weight, all other things being equal (specifically, bullet placement, bullet construction and impact velocity).

So the real question is not which rounds are sure-fire stoppers and which are rubbish, but what is the best compromise between light ammo weight and low recoil on the one hand, and terminal effectiveness out to a desired distance on the other?

I suggest that the upper limit is determined by the requirement for an average soldier to be able to fire the rifle on full-auto at short range with reasonable accuracy (yes, I know that if you get the shot placement right you don't need full-auto, but all of the world's armies have decided they want full-auto, so even if they're all wrong, they're not going to go back from that requirement). In practical terms, the 7x43 EM-2 round is probably the biggest which has demonstrated that it can meet this requirement: the 6.5mm Grendel and 6.8mm Rem SPC are not far behind.

I suggest that the lower limit is determined by the capability to penetrate standard body armour (and yes, I know that the specs vary a lot) and inflict a potentially lethal wound behind it at a range of at least 300m. That leaves out the various PDW rounds and puts the 5.45x39 and 5.56x45 at the bottom end of acceptability.

I doubt that anyone would dispute that, given similar bullet construction and placement, a 6.8mm Rem would on average put down a man faster and more reliably than a 5.56mm. So the question should be; is the extra weight and recoil (plus the cost to change) of the 6.8mm worth it to achieve the extra terminal effectiveness? I suspect that the answer to that may vary depending on whether you're dealing with funding military procurement safely at home, or are up at the sharp end facing close-quarter combat on a regular basis.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[madmike]

I saw an article where penetration and ability to reach vital organs was discussed. It was proven that a .22 short could reach vital organs from any angle.

However.

The three ways death is caused are a critical hit on a critical organ (Heart, liver, lungs, kidneys, central nervous system), which this would satisfy. This is usually instantanous or nearly so.

Blood loss--a bigger wound, which does not necessarily imply a bigger caliber. the .22 short does not satisfy this. Nor do some 7.62 loads, especially in ball. Other loads, and virtually all 5.56mm loads within 300m do. This may take several seconds to several minutes, depending on the wound. The wound need not be incapacitating to accomplish this, regardless of the actual caliber used--a shoulder shot with a .30-06 or a 5.56mm that damages the subclavian artery is going to be lethal within a few seconds, and excruciatingly painful and debilitating meantime. More energy on target will make no difference, nor does the slight (For purposes of the human bady) difference in entry hole size. (Okay, blowing the guy in two with a .50 would matter. But let's stick to stuff I can carry and shoot lots.)

Trauma caused be delivery of energy on target. The .22 short does not satisfy this. Nor do some 7.62 loads, especially in ball. Other loads, and virtually all 5.56mm loads within 300m do. This is usually fairly quick--on the order of seconds.

You can have a bullet with 20,000 foot pounds in a long tungsten penetrator that lances through the body and leaves a hole, proceeding on with 19,800 foot pounds, and a .45 slug that hits the body and remains within, delivering 200 foot pounds. In terms of hitting vital organs and energy on target, both are identical. There is a momentary instantaneous wound channel of greater size with the supersonic bullet. But that is not of itself a surety of better wounding or energy on target. It can be, in the right loading. See above.

Once you reach enough power to kill a person--a couple of houndred foot pounds--there is an upper limit where more energy accomplishes nothing and wastes resources. At this point, every military I know of has decided the 5.56/5.45 range satisfies this requirement. If a slightly larger caliber, on the order of 7mm, is adopted, it will be because it penetrates body armor better. 7.62X51 and .30-06 are simply not needed to accomplish this task. With constant changes in armor technology, adopting a new weapon system every time is prohibitively expensive and unwarranted.

The lower limit is definitely ABOVE the 32 grain finned flechette, especially with body armor.

Upshot: +90% of firefights are within 300m. At any range out to 500m, a 5.56mm has sufficient energy to cause trauma kills, incapacitating wounds or destroy vital organs. If you don't believe this, I offer to swap the round of your choice at that range. I get to shoot my 5.56mm first. I've had 5.56mm fly quite close overhead at 500m. It's still DEFINITELY supersonic and was DEFINITELY packing more energy than a .45 at the muzzle. I was not about to stick my head up to test this. I offer you that honor with this "underpowered" cartridge.

If I expect to engage troops in hard body armor OF CURRENT TECH beyond 100m, I would rather have a 6.8mm SPC. No question.

However, at more than 100m, there are a broad variety of additional weapons systems I'd prefer to bring into play.

If I were acting as a DM/sniper beyond 500m, I would definitely choose 7.62X51 (I lie. I'd choose 7mm Rem magnum if it was more available. But the military caliber is easier to get. Logistics is relevant, or "I'd look really &^#$ stupid with a $5000 rifle and no ammo").

In any engagement I am likely to see either militarily or as a civilian, 5.56 has plenty of power at any range in which I expect to use the rifle as my primary arm.

But I'd really prefer that arm NOT be an INSAS and I'm not crazy about the L85, based on findings on both. Any modern weapon with modular capability would be fine--AR15, FNC, Sig 550, AR18, AK74, etc.

Of those, for purely practical considerations, the AR wins out on availability of spare parts. Assuming SHTF here in the continental US, try finding parts for your Sig 550. Take your time.

Parts for an INSAS? Hah! Though I gather there would be lots of spares littering the battlefield to choose from.