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 The M16A4 is on the outs simply because it is outdated, and here's why: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...

[rstrahan]

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 Explain how the M16 is outdated and useless when our troops are being hammered by the Ak-47 and Ak-74.

[PROCON]

Times and missions change.

The M-16A1 served us well in Vietnam, a brilliantly designed and effective weapon.

The transition to the M-4 makes sense.

[re_tail20]

It wasn’t the M-16 in 7.62, which has never existed, unless you count the AR-10. It’s the M-14 you mean. This is a small and long overdue step forwards. Now if both the Army and Marines can adopt an M-4 type carbine with a bigger caliber, or modular multiple calibers, and also a piston operating system, they’d be back in real business once again.

[Bringbackthedraft]

Ak-47 and Ak-74. ???? Updated STG 44s.

[ctdonath2]

Explain how the M16 is outdated and useless when replaced by the same thing with minor tweaks. Biggest change is adjustable stock and shorter barrel.

[IronJack]

The M-16 was introduced to the military in what, 1958? And its demise has been predicted with monotonous regularity ever since.

I'll believe it when I see it.

[jonascord]

If they issue the M-4 to all the military, and issue the M-16A4 to Obama's private army, suddenly, who is better armed, with longer range?

If it was anyone else, 8 years ago, I would consider this tinfoil hat logic. But now that he's got his crotch slurping pets in the JCS, a Muslim as head of the CIA, and a drooling idiot as SecState, anything is possible.

[Herzo61]

The Ak-74 (a replacement for the AK-47) fires a round similar to the M-16/M-4 - the 5.45 X 39. The Russians have also gone to lighter ammunition (more rounds per pound).

[smokingfrog]

The fixed stock is more durable, I think. A 20 inch barrel is going to give better accuracy at longer distances, so maybe they could keep some for the dedicated marksman.

[Chode]

XM-177/CAR-15,what's old is new again...

[circlecity]

Seems to me that the M4 is certainly preferable in the confines of an urban or even jungle environment. If I were in the open spaces of a desert or a prairie I want something with a longer barrel than a carbine. Something with a bit more range. An M16 if it has to be 5.56 but preferably a good .308/7.62 like an M14 or an AR-10. I personally always prefer the feel of a good .30 caliber rifle. An M1A Scout is pretty hard to beat.

[GingisK]

The transition to the M-4 makes sense

Same weapon, different furniture.

[PoloSec]

I remember back in 1970 when I entered basic training at Ft Jackson SC, our unit was the first to get the new M16A1.

[knarf]

MY 74 jammed a lot

[Charles Martel]

I think the fixed stock is a big part of the reason for this change. That Vietnam-era furniture just doesn't work well with newer body armor, making the rifle feel awkward to use. The evolution from just wearing ALICE gear and shooting a M16A2 to wearing an Interceptor vest with plates and MOLLE II gear while shooting an M16A4 with ACOG, PEQ-2, Surefire, etc., has been a bigger change than many realize.

If they're going to put a collapsible carbine buttstock on the rifle, may as well shift to the full M4 package.

[Axenolith]

Really, The debate as formulated is akin to having a serious discussion over putting T tops and a different name on a Firebird and calling it a Trans-AM...

[precisionshootist]

This is a big mistake. The Marines are going 100% with a short range carbine? Do they really think all future fighting will be short range? This move almost guarantees it won’t. They need to study history a little closer. Recent history even. Like when the Russians were fighing in Afghanistan. What was the most feared weapon? Why it was the half century old SMLE in the hands of rifleman that could hit them at 800 meters whereas the Russians nice compact AK/47/74 were next to useless at those ranges.

[SauronOfMordor]

I think a dedicated marksman would prefer a 7.62 AR-10, with scope.

[Theoria]

I agree. I always enjoyed the fixed stock, and I always shot better with the A2 compared to later models. The longer barrel and buffer spring provided less recoil, and more accuracy, imho.