Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

OUR TROOPS UNMET NEEDS or after 40 years the DoD Inspector General will look in to the crappy M-16.
M & C News ^ | Jan 10, 2006 | Winslow T. Wheeler

Posted on 01/11/2006 7:09:45 PM PST by undocumentedrat

WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- Many in Congress and the Pentagon boast American troops have the best equipment in the world. But reports from the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan say otherwise. The information about the failures is not new; solutions are long overdue. Some of the most worrying questions center on the efficacy and lethality of the firearms U.S. forces are using. Official reports show high levels of dissatisfaction with the M-4 carbine, M16 rifle magazines, and M249 machine gun. The small size of the 5.56mm bullet used in these weapons is also highly controversial among some troops. But problems with weaponry are just a subset of the larger issue: equipment that is not up to scratch. Reports from the Army`s Natick Soldier Center, its Tank-automotive and Armaments Command, and the Marine`s Systems Command Liaison Team in Iraq -- all from 2002 and 2003 -- tell us, for example, troops` 'dislikes.' Among those dislikes: uniforms that rip easily, eyewear that fogs up and fits poorly under helmets, and boots that blister, crack, and burst, and are 'poor for movement,' or as in one soldier`s e-mail are 'truly awful and also painful.' Troops buy some equipment with their own money, usually because government issue performs poorly. Such items include gloves, socks, flashlights, padding for backpacks, 'CamelBak' hydration systems, and weapons cleaning equipment. Banal items? Perhaps to us back home, but certainly not for soldiers fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan and the desert of Iraq, doing whatever it takes to keep their bodies and their weapons working. continue ->

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

KEYWORDS: 556; army; bang; banglist; m16; m4; marines
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-107 next last
To: mylife
The .223 weighs less than half of what a .308 round weighs

Which means you can sneak around the desert with twice the ammo per soldier if need be.

21 posted on 01/11/2006 7:39:44 PM PST by krb (ad hominem arguments are for stupid people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: undocumentedrat
I'd like to see them go with the 6.8mm cartridge which is a compromise between the 5.56mm and 7.62mm.

But I doubt any change will occur during wartime.

22 posted on 01/11/2006 7:40:15 PM PST by Mulder (“The spirit of resistance is so valuable, that I wish it to be always kept alive" Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: undocumentedrat

Simple solution - replace the uppers and mags with 6.8 SPC ones. Replace the Humvee with the M113A2 as we used to use in the 70s.

23 posted on 01/11/2006 7:40:34 PM PST by rahbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

If you were ever actually in a fire fight you wouldn't make such ignorant statements. The Israeli infantry actually use and prefer the FN FAL which is 7.62 mm and the UZI which is 9 mm. Lastly, OBL was never in a fire fight. He uses his weapon as a fashion accessory.

24 posted on 01/11/2006 7:41:00 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: undocumentedrat

It doesn't matter what you equip our soldiers and Marines with ... it will never be enough. No rifle ever served our military that someone didn't piss and moan about ... it goes with the territory.

25 posted on 01/11/2006 7:42:09 PM PST by BluH2o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: operation clinton cleanup

Yes you can carry more rounds of 5.56 than 7.62 ... but, if each soldier was a RIFLEMAN they would only need one or two rounds of 7.62 and not 10 rounds of 5.56.

Ramp up the M14 production lines!!!!! And bring back the M1 Garand as well ... infact bring back that "old stuff". John Browing was way ahead of his time.

26 posted on 01/11/2006 7:42:48 PM PST by MaDeuce (Do it to them, before they do it to you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Wounding an enemy depletes more enemy resources than killing them.

27 posted on 01/11/2006 7:42:52 PM PST by Rodney Dangerfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


You consume ammunition much faster with an M-16 because you need 2-3 round bursts to have any affect so you need to carry more.

28 posted on 01/11/2006 7:43:05 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: operation clinton cleanup
Image hosted by but it generally only takes ONE to put-em down... less is more 8^)
29 posted on 01/11/2006 7:43:19 PM PST by Chode (American Hedonist ©®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Soldiers` blogs and e-mails report many of them like the lighter weight of the small caliber weapons, and the large amount of ammunition troops can carry, but some say those bullets are 'too small and too stabilized' thus making them 'woefully inadequate as a man stopper.'

The .223 is 5.56mm x 45 mm the soviet version is 5.45x 39 and although it is more compact it has a fatter bottlenecked cartridge and has all the velocity of the .223 The actual bullet is much longer than the .223 and is a tumblin mofo when it strikes. I have AKS chambered for both and prefer the soviet round

30 posted on 01/11/2006 7:46:10 PM PST by mylife (The roar of the masses could be farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: operation clinton cleanup

Standard load of two full pouches and a full magazine in the rifle:
M-14 - 2 x 20-round mags per pouch and 1 in the piece = 100 rounds
M-16 - 3 x 30-round mags per pouch and 1 in the piece = 210 rounds

The lighter 5.56mm round was adopted for "spray and pray" jungle warfare where the ranges of the firefights was expected to be very close and volume of fire was more important than maximum range.

Also, a loaded M-14 weighs over 12 pounds, an M-16 about 7 1/2.

31 posted on 01/11/2006 7:46:33 PM PST by RebelBanker (If you can't do something smart, do something right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: EricT.; operation clinton cleanup
I think most grunts would happily hump a couple extra pounds if means having an effective weapon.

Our Troops aren't doing very many marches in Iraq, however, that might matter more in the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan.
32 posted on 01/11/2006 7:46:51 PM PST by MikefromOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GhostofWCooper

I have a 300 mag and now that's a kick ass rifle.

33 posted on 01/11/2006 7:46:54 PM PST by antiunion person (Don't let anyone separate you from your hard earned money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: undocumentedrat
Possible cyberspace conversation...

M Kehoe: I like these threads.
5.56mm: OK, you might like these threads, but I usually catch hell from all of the armchair warriors, and chickenhawks.
M Kehoe: Well guy, times do change, and we are fighting a different kind of war.
5.56mm: Sure, I know that, but I'd still like to kick some jihadi a$$.
M Kehoe: You and me both brother.


34 posted on 01/11/2006 7:47:09 PM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: undocumentedrat; All

35 posted on 01/11/2006 7:49:01 PM PST by Conservative Firster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chode
but it generally only takes ONE to put-em down... less is more

As a former Air Force puke (as we have been called)... I would rather have massive amounts of ammo to spray at an enemy we could not see performing base defense. But, then again, they only ammo I carried was stacking pallets for shipment!

36 posted on 01/11/2006 7:50:12 PM PST by operation clinton cleanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: mylife
The .223 weighs less than half of what a .308 round weighs

But don't our guys carry more rounds if they are equipped with a 223?

37 posted on 01/11/2006 7:59:34 PM PST by kerryusama04 (The Bill of Rights is not occupation specific.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MaDuce
Read the book "Mobility of a Nation" by the marine corps press and you can see why the concept of the M-16 was considered valid. the Ability of a soldier/marine to carry more rounds per combat load of equipment was the driving force behind the change. I believe in tests the M-16 with their ballistic pattern and "kill ratio" were similar to the 7.62m. Higher speed (FPS)of the M-16 round helped with the internal damage. However, I do know that I would rather carry the pig (M-60) over the M-249 and an M-14 over a M-16. weight was a factor in the choice of the 5.56m round but the ability of the 7.62 for penetration and damage per weight ratio is the best.

p.s. the logistics branch of the military has been providing some of the worst equipment on Americans ever since the Civil War (i.e. fns Italian battle rifle used during the 1898 Spanish war and the French machine gun during WWI)
38 posted on 01/11/2006 8:02:34 PM PST by Liaison (Semper Gumbi- Always Flexible---- ;))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: operation clinton cleanup
my personal weapon is an HK91A3 and i have come to accept it's weight and ammo as the price of reliability and survival. my standard load-out is 12 20round mags with one in the rifle.
39 posted on 01/11/2006 8:02:53 PM PST by Chode (American Hedonist ©®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: All

The problem is not with the M-16,per se, but the application and use thereof.

The M-16 was designed as a "meeting engagement weapon", i.e. for a situation in which both sides might be surprised, at short range, and where the ability to spray bullets was typically the deciding factor. Unlike WWII Europe, Vietnam was not the place for a M-1 variant (M-14, although it did have it's uses). Vietnam did not afford open fields of fire. where the enemy could be spotted more easily and at longer ranges (over 100 yards). In urban combat in WWII and Korea, the best weapon was the submachine gun (the M-3 and Thompson were both chambered for .45, ask the Russians who survived Stalingrad how effective their PPsh's were). The M-16, with it's small round does not give our soldiers the benefits of the .30-06 or .45 in the open deserts and urban centers of Iraq, or the hills and mountains of Afghanistan.

It simply does not have the power or range necessary for these enviornments.

It is also a weapon with a very low tolerance for dirt, and the kind of dirt one finds in Iraq (powdery sand and dust) is hard to keep out of the weapon, no matter what precautions are taken. The M-16 always required a great deal of daily maintenace, and requires far more in this kind of enviornment. The numbers of misfires and jammings from Iraq is alarming, and most certainly due to a combination of poor maintenance and the enviornment in which our boys have to operate.

The M-16 was a great jungle weapon (when it was properly maintained and after the initial problems were fixed), but it cannot do the job in an urban, desert of mountain setting.

What we need is a different mix of weapons, I believe. Keep some M-16's (with M-203's attached), but in an urban enviornment, arm at least two members of each squad with a shotgun and an SMG (Uzi sounds good). Add another M-60 to the mix, as well.

When you go out into an enviornment like the Afghan mountains, at least two heavy rifles (7.62 sniper-types, I forget the designation), and an extra M-60 should go along. Keep a bunch of M-16s (again, with an M-203 attached).

Change the tactics and weapons to suit the terrain and conditions!

40 posted on 01/11/2006 8:03:11 PM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-107 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson