1911Forum banner

1 - 20 of 84 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
FYI:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../ap/20031122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_goodbye_m_16

BAGHDAD, Iraq - After nearly 40 years of battlefield service around the globe, the M-16 may be on its way out as the standard Army assault rifle because of flaws highlighted during the invasion and occupation of Iraq.


U.S. officers in Iraq say the M-16A2 — the latest incarnation of the 5.56 mm firearm — is quietly being phased out of front-line service because it has proven too bulky for use inside the Humvees and armored vehicles that have emerged as the principal mode of conducting patrols since the end of major fighting on May 1.


The M-16, at nearly 40 inches, is widely considered too long to aim quickly within the confines of a vehicle during a firefights, when reaction time is a matter of life and death.

"It's a little too big for getting in and out of vehicles," said Brig. Gen. Martin Dempsey, commander of the 1st Armored Division, which controls Baghdad. "I can tell you that as a result of this experience, the Army will look very carefully at how it performed."


Instead of the M-16, which also is prone to jamming in Iraq's dusty environment, M-4 carbines are now widely issued to American troops.


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.

Might be media hype but? Seems to me a handgun would be faster to use out of a vehicle, but I guess if your choices are the M16 or the 9mm rat shooter their issued I grab the M16 also.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,304 Posts
Interesting that some of the highlighted issues are being brought up as "something they just found out" with the current campaign.

And this is really amusing ....

"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 ..."

.... As if that plastic behemoth called the "OICW" weighing somewhere around twelve pounds is somehow the answer! That is really amusing.

It baffles me why our military folk don't just tender contracts for refined versions of two of the most proven and useful designs available; the AK-47 and the RPG-7.

We certainly have the knowhow to pare down the weight of an AK-47 based rifle, improve it's accuracy, and turn it into something even more serviceable. The RPG is another very effective piece; and yet another off the shelf idea that our technological improvements could turn into something even better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
An excellent refined version of the AK-47 already exists in the form of the Israli Galil rifle. More accurate, high grade parts, and more importantly it works under some very adverse conditions that would make an AR based design choke up. Nothing on it need be changed, and it is avalible in the excellent 7.62 NATO and the ...well.. um...coyote slaying 5.56.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
308 Posts
Funny how the Israelis gave up on the Galil, despite having thousands of surplus copies in storage in favor of the M-16...and how the SAS CHOSE the M-4...and so did SOCOM...and so did the Canadians...and most of the Australians...but what would those groups know? And yes, the Israelis had to purchase their rifles, they were not US Surplus. The M-16 A2 and the M-4 is a great weapon in the hands of someone that has the motivation to clean it once in a while and learn to use a rifle. I carry an M-4 on a regular basis and it gets beat up but has never failed. The OICW is not a workable platform at this time and will not be for a long time. I have absolute faith in my Colt M-4.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
I heard that the M16 is going to get a new caliber/cartridge
Uses same mag just under 7mm with a heavier bullet
for the short configured rifles...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
709 Posts
Read in "Army Times" a few weeks ago that Tankers were picking up AKs, because they didn't have enough M-16 to go around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
709 Posts
Nope!
Same Cal, different bullet..62gr .....223 1/7 twist
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
I believe they have 1/7 twist already...
I have seen rows and rows of M-16s
At the Nation Guard armory vaults
all the barrels with 1/7 and some other
writing on them...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,060 Posts
Although the M16A1 — introduced in the early 1980s
I thought the A1 was issued in 1967 or so...:confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,060 Posts
Found a good history of the different models & their dates of adoption; seems pretty reputable:

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm

M16: 1964
M16A1: 1967
M16A2: 1982
M16A3 & A4: 1994

Looks like the author of the above Yahoo article neglected to do all of his research. (I'm a real stickler for correct dates. :D )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
I love that the M-16 hasnt proven reliable in the desert (from what I have read mostly when not properly cleaned by rear echelon troops) and is too long so therefore lets replace it with the ridiculously oversophisticated and massive OICW.

ROFL. Fools.

FedDC said:
Funny how the Israelis gave up on the Galil, despite having thousands of surplus copies in storage in favor of the M-16...and how the SAS CHOSE the M-4...and so did SOCOM...and so did the Canadians...and most of the Australians...but what would those groups know?
With the exception of including the Canadians that was an excellent point.

:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,304 Posts
I think the issue with the various M16s is their inability to operate under the worst conditions during sustained usage when things like cleaning are not practical. I used the A1 and sometimes carried the CAR-15; they got knocked around some, but under ideal conditions and with proper cleaning they always worked fine. But that is not the same as being in an environment where there is constant wind driven dust and sand, and there may not be the opportunity to tear it down for a clean.

I think the reason some of the British special units have used it is only due to the problems with the Enfield SA80 which has had serious problems in it's various guises, and the SA80 is heavy. The Israelis took on alot of M16s early on because at the time coming up to the 1973 war they had made the first Galil rifles using Finn Valmet M62 receivers as a base and could only procure a limited number at the time in 1972. And the Galil is heavy too - about the same weight as the FAL.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
m16 troubles

I carried an m16a2 for years with and without a m203, but give me any rifle and ill take the M14 or M14 squad or scout, you can never go wrong with the 308 and that setup, penetrates like hell and stops em with one round. and if you live and train with it, the weight isnt that big of a deal. just my two cents
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
494 Posts
Not anytime soon...

The OICW isn’t in tune with the light, mobile and hard hitting direction the military is moving toward. I don’t think it will ever seriously see the light of day in combat. Too expensive and too heavy. Dragging a 12 pound weapon around on patrol isn’t feasible or practical. The cost alone makes mainstream use of such a rifle prohibitive.



The alleged M16 replacement, the XM8, is also in 5.56 which means this cartridge is going to be with us a long time.



I doubt the USA is going introduce a new cartridge format and go against the uniformity of NATO. Though, to be honest, I don’t see any real reason to replace the 5.56 or M4, which is almost standard issue right now. It’s still inherently more accurate and has better range than anything the commies have conjured up. The lethality of the 5.56 compared to the 5.45 and 7.62x39 is debatable, with no clear winner.

Think of it this way, M4 and M16 armed soldiers have killed more combatants armed with the AK47 or AK74 than vice versa, even with all the dubious accounts of questionable reliability and fragility. Clearly the M16/M4 and 5.56 do the one thing right that they are supposed to: Kill bad guys

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
LAK said:
I think the issue with the various M16s is their inability to operate under the worst conditions during sustained usage when things like cleaning are not practical. I used the A1 and sometimes carried the CAR-15; they got knocked around some, but under ideal conditions and with proper cleaning they always worked fine. But that is not the same as being in an environment where there is constant wind driven dust and sand, and there may not be the opportunity to tear it down for a clean.
But isnt it hilarious that in response to that problem they are going to field a complicated huge 12 lb monstrosity with an electronic laser rangefinding sight, fire control equipment for the airbursting grenades, etc? If the M16 doesnt do well with sustained use in a hostile environment how is the OICW going to do?

:biglaugh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
386 Posts
Something along the line of the H-K G36 http://world.guns.ru/assault/as14-e.htm would be suitable IMO. A bullpup design makes sense to allow for maximum barrel length in the shortest package, a simple optical sight and variants for a wide range of purposes. Nice gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
There's a simple solution to the reliability factor : The Thompson/ Center muzzleloaders. Very few moving parts, no cycling action to be clogged up by sand, large manstopping calibers (which might double as anti armor given the light construction of some APCs), and peasant conscripts can operate and maintain it. Just a thought.

I'm very much in agreement with Mus, the intended replacement for the current issue rifle will be a mechanical mess which will take a computer tech to maintain and this is all under battlefield conditions, not under a roofed shooting bench.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
709 Posts
Being a guard member 18yrs, I've seen Markmenship get worse and worse.
G36 ? has a scope built into it.:eek: Wait till the "Grunts" start droping them and rattel all that "High-Tech" stuff to junk!

I'll take that good-old "Post-sight" Any day"
:)
 
1 - 20 of 84 Posts
Top