Why The Military Is Moving On From The M16

Task & Purpose ^ | October 28, 2015 | Christian Beekman

[re_tail20]

The M16A4 may soon retire. This week, the Marine Corps announced via internal memo that the M4 carbine will become the primary-issued rifle in infantry and security units, as well as replace the M16 rifle in supporting training schools by September 2016. Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. Robert Neller approved the change, which was first proposed to the previous commandant, Gen. Robert Dunford, according to Marine Corps Times. This decision falls in line with the Army's phased transition away from the M16 over the past few years. The M16A4 is on the outs simply because it is outdated, and here's why:

Fixed stocks no longer make sense for an standard-issue infantry weapon.

The fixed stock is a holdover from Cold War-era weapons design that doesn't fit with other changes in training and equipment. The M4 retractable stock allows for an adjustable length of pull, helping troops with different body types to maintain good shooting fundamentals when they shoulder their weapon. The increasing use of body armor has underscored this, as comfortable length of pulls change once one dons a plate carrier or other protective system. Finally, the M4's stock makes it easier to stow for transport; this is an important feature for vehicle and aircraft operations.

The 20-inch barrel isn't needed anymore.

One of the biggest differences between the M4 and the M16A4 is the barrel length: 14.5 inches versus 20 inches, respectively. The M16A4's longer barrel allowed for a higher muzzle velocity and a longer effective range; conversely the shorter M4 barrel limited its performance in both categories. But improvements in ammunition design have enabled the M4 to close the gap with its longer forefather. The Marine Corps adopted a new 62-grain, 5.56 x 45 mm Special Operations Science and Technology round. The SOST round is designed to...

[occamrzr06]

Who knew?

[M1903A1]

The M-16 was never issued in 7.62 NATO.

There was a similar-looking predecessor in 7.62 NATO, called the AR-10 (not to be confused with the civilian 7.62 rifle of the same name) that was made in Holland and fielded by a few forces prior to adoption of the AR-15 as the M-16. I *think* Sudan used the AR-10; for certain the Portuguese paratroopers that fought in the Colonial War in Africa used the AR-10.

[Joe Marine 76]

Previous Commandant was General JOSEPH Dunford USMC.

[Jack Black]

The M16 in 7.62 was still being used in Iraq and Afgahanistan because it has a lot more stopping power than the M4. Explain how the M16 is outdated and useless when our troops are being hammered by the Ak-47 and Ak-74.

I agree this isn't a great article. First the M4 *is* the M-16, with a few useful modifications like collapsing stock and shorter barrel. It's basically a carbine version of the M-16 rifle. Parts are interchangeable between them.

As far as the "M-16 in 7.62" that was the original caliber that the first rifles in the M-16 Series were chambered in. They are known as the AR-10 (generically). Armalite was the builder of the AR-10 originally, Knights Armament has been the military supplier for many years, and probably still is.

For a long time the AR-10 was impossible to get. Armalite went out of business in the 1970s, and Colt which bought the M-16 (AR-15) rights didn't buy the AR-10 rights.

Eventually Armalite was bought by someone, and the company started building AR-10s again. Although they were not identical to the earlier ones.

THe Original Armalite AR-10s were used by a couple of Army's: Portugal adopted them, and so they were used in Africa in Mozambique and other Portugese colonies.

These original Armalite AR-10s are easy to distinguish from later models. Brown hardware and the charging lever is inside the carry handle. Armalite did make a pretty good copy of this gun, including both those features for a few years in the early 2000s.

A more recent version of the AR-10 built by Knights. The rifle is called the SR-25 (for Stoner Rifle).

[x1stcav]

That’s what I carried in the old 4INF.

I really don’t get the drift of this article.

[jpsb]

I think you mean the M14 in 7.62 was still being used in Iraq and Afghanistan. I like the M14 very nice weapon. Up close the M4 is probably a better choice but why let the enemy get up close?

[MortMan]

1950s technology, for one...

[Chode]

me neither... other than the barrel twist and maybe burst control it's same/same

[StoneWall Brigade]

Ping

[precisionshootist]

Not really sure where a highly mobile infantry is going to be shooting en masses at 800 yards?

I'm sure the Russians thought the same thing until they were fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan and getting killed from beyond the reach of their issued carbines.

A couple issues are at play that I think are being ignored.

First, most of the planet remains wide open unpopulated areas. Cities are just dots on the surface of the earth so bottom line there is just more opportunity for combat in wide open areas and this will not change for hundreds of years.

Second, a rifle is not ideal but very capable of being used effectively in close quarters situations, however a short range carbine is not effective at distance. The rifle can do both. I'm not saying do away with the M4, just don't do away with the rifle and most importantly the skills needed to employ it. The skill of the long range rifleman has been a key element in the protection of our freedom since the founding of this nation and will likely continue to be for many years to come.

Just my opinion.

[Vermont Lt]

I guess I would argue against sending infantry into Afghanistan again. (Ha ha....)

[precisionshootist]

Yes, agree. We should just send in the B-52s next time.

[archy]

I'm sure the Russians thought the same thing until they were fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan and getting killed from beyond the reach of their issued carbines.

You think that's how it was for Ivan?

9ya rota [9th Company] preview

Full movie [about 3 hours; get the popcorn]