Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Army, Marines rate weapon success (M16A2/A4; M4; M9)
Stars and Stripes, European Edition ^ | Sunday, July 13, 2003 | Mark Oliva

Posted on 07/14/2003 1:31:45 AM PDT by xzins

U.S. forces rolled over the Iraqi military in just weeks.

The plans seemed flawless, and the courage of the soldiers and Marines unflappable.

But with the dust settling — and the adrenaline rush of battle now subsiding — military officials are finding some weapons performed as advertised. Others, however, let troops down when they needed them most.

Army and Marine officials recently released after-action reports compiling what was right and what was wrong about the small arms with which troops squared off against Iraqi forces. Soldiers and Marines rated the rifles and pistols they carried into battle, and not all got perfect scores.

Soldiers and Marines relied on variants of the M-16 rifle. The M-16, in service since the early days of the Vietnam War, was highly criticized then as unreliable, often jamming during firefights. Soldiers who participated in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan also complained the M-4 variant, a shorter version of the M-16, lacked what they needed in combat.

In Iraq, reviews were mixed.

Most soldiers carried the M-4 into battle in Iraq and “were very satisfied with this weapon,” according a report from the Army’s Special Operations Battle Lab. “It performed well in a demanding environment, especially given the rail system and accompanying sensors and optics.”

Marines carried the older and larger M-16A2 rifles, but a report from the Marine Corps Systems Command Liaison Team stated: “Many Marines commented on desire for the shorter weapon vice the longer M-16s.”

One Marine told the team that the shorter rifle would have been better in confined urban battle. Some also said the smaller rifle would have been easier to handle when climbing in and out of trucks and armored vehicles.

“Several Marines even opted to use the AK-47s that had been captured from Iraqi weapons caches,” the Marine report stated. “Others were trading rifles for pistols to go into buildings to allow for mobility in confined spaces.”

Marine Corps officials announced late last year that infantry forces would soon switch from the M-16A2 to the M-16A4, a heavier-barreled version of the long rifle with a rail system like the M-4. Stocks of the weapons, however, arrived in Kuwait too late to be fielded and sighted for battle. Most stayed in storage, but some weapons were delivered to Marines under a plan to initially field one per squad.

A number of M-16A4 rifles, fitted with a 4X scope, were given to Marine rifleman. The combination, Marines said, allowed them to “identify targets at a distance, under poor conditions, and maintained ability to quickly acquire the target in close-in environment[s].”

But not all soldiers and Marines were enamored with the performance of their rifles. Complaints centered on lack of range and reliability problems.

“The most significant negative comment was reference [to] the M-4’s range,” the Army report stated. “In the desert, there were times where soldiers needed to assault a building that may be 500+ meters distant across open terrain. They did not feel the M-4 provided effective fire at that range.”

Safety was another concern. The M-4’s bolt can ride forward when the selector switch is on safe, allowing the firing pin to strike a bullet’s primer.

“Numerous soldiers showed us bullets in their magazines that had small dents in the primer,” the Army report said.

Reliability complaints also found fault with the oil soldiers and Marines used to clean their weapons. In the dusty, sandstorm-plagued battlefields of Iraq, weapons became clogged with sand, trapped by the heavy oil, called CLP.

Several Washington Post articles recalling the night the 507th Maintenance Company was ambushed recounted moments when soldiers in the convoy, including Pfc. Jessica Lynch, battled their weapons to continue fighting Iraqi irregular forces.

“In the swirling dust, soldiers’ rifles jammed,” one article reported. “Pfc. Patrick Miller, 23, from suburban Wichita, began shoving rounds into his rifle one at a time, firing single shots at enemies swarming all around.”

“We had no working weapons,” Sgt. James Riley told The Washington Post. “We couldn’t even make a bayonet charge — we would have been mowed down.”

The Army’s after-action found more soldiers unhappy with CLP.

“The sand is as fine as talcum powder,” the report stated. “The CLP attracted the sand to the weapon.”

Unlike the soldiers’ reports after Afghanistan, Marines in Iraq said the 5.56 mm round fired from the M-16 “definitely answered the mail” and “as long as shots were in the head or chest, they went down.” The Marine reports said many were initially skeptical of the small rounds’ performance against the heavier 7.62 mm round fired from AK-47s. There were reports of enemy being shot and not going down, but most were referencing non-lethal shots on extremities.

Still, “there were reports of targets receiving shots in the vitals and not going down. These stories could not be described, but are of the rare superhuman occurrences that defy logic and caliber of round.”

The report said Marines asked for a heavier-grained round — up to 77 grains.

The M-16 series of rifles fires a 55-grain bullet, a projectile that weighs slightly more than three-and-a-half grams. Some servicemembers believe a heavier-grained bullet would carry more energy downrange, creating greater knockdown power.

Both soldiers and Marines also noted problems with the M-9 9 mm pistol.

“There was general dissatisfaction with this weapon,” the Army report said. “First and foremost, soldiers do not feel it possesses sufficient stopping power.”

Soldiers asked for a tritium glow-in-the-dark sight for night firing.

But soldiers and Marines alike railed against the poor performance of the M-9 ammunition magazines.

“The springs are extremely weak and the follower does not move forward when rounds are moved,” the Marine report stated. “If the magazine is in the weapon, malfunctions result.”

Soldiers complained that even after they were told to “stretch” the springs and load only 10 rounds instead of the maximum 15, the weapons still performed poorly. Lack of maintenance was determined not to be the cause.

“Multiple cleanings of the magazine each day does not alleviate the problem,” the Marine report stated. “The main problem is the weak/worn springs.”

Still, Marines wanted more pistols to back up their rifles, especially in urban environments, according to the report.


TOPICS: Front Page News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aftermathanalysis; army; iraq; marines; semperfi; soldiers; war; weapons
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-217 next last

1 posted on 07/14/2003 1:31:46 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: xzins
Interesting after-action reports. I enjoy reading these and their glimpses into the lives of the troops.

The M9 doesn't have stopping power. The .45 stops people, but many can't get accuracy with it.
2 posted on 07/14/2003 1:34:10 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
There's A Better Way To Beat The Media Clymers (And You Don't Have To Skate)!

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

3 posted on 07/14/2003 1:34:57 AM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Duct tape kept some going. Zip ties did the trick for others. Needed: buckshot rounds.

These were just some of the comments soldiers and Marines had for teams of researchers who fanned out across the battlefields in Iraq to find out which weapons were what the troops needed and which ones weren’t up to snuff.

The war in Iraq tested not just the soldiers and Marines on the ground, but their gear as well. Two after-action reports from a Marine Corps Systems Command Team and an Army Special Operations Battle Lab collected comments recently to rate everything from uniforms to weapons.

Here’s what troops had to say about their weapons:

 

M-249 Squad Automatic Weapon

Soldiers found this light machine gun to be exactly what they needed. They fielded a version with a short barrel and forward pistol grip that soldiers loved.

“It provided the requisite firepower at the squad level, as intended,” the Army report stated. “The short barrel and forward pistol grip allowed for very effective use of the SAW in urban terrain.”

Soldiers also lauded the soft ammunition pouches as an improvement over the previous hard plastic pouch. Still, they said, there is room for improvement.

They said a better design for stowing the bipod legs is needed when using the pistol grip. Open bipod legs made urban movement difficult, the report said. The soldiers also rated the smaller 100-round pouch better than the 200-round pouch, in which linked ammunition became tangled.

Marines said the SAW they fielded was “worn out and apparently beyond repair,” the report said. “Many Marines are duct taping and zip tying the weapons together.”

Marine reconnaissance units requested a “parasaw” — a shortened version of the M-249 SAW designed for close-quarters combat and used by special operations units. Infantry units wanted a version with a collapsible butt stock.

 

M-240 machine gun

Marines who gave the first real-world test to the M-240G, the heavier successor to the old M-60 machine gun, weren’t disappointed.

“Marines who did not know what to expect were extremely impressed with effects on target,” the report said.

Soldiers, too, were impressed with their version, the M-240B. “Soldiers have great confidence in this weapon,” the Army report stated. “The vast majority of comments were positive.”

Still, soldiers said, some improvements could be made. Among their suggestions: a lighter tripod, and collapsible bipods like the M-249 SAW.

 

M-203 grenade launcher

Soldiers thought the M-203 grenade launcher attached to the M-16 was the “weapon of choice for combat.”

They praised the 40 mm grenade’s performance, but said it could have been more effective had troops been given more training with it.

The soldiers found that keeping a round in the chamber, ready to fire, was unsafe; they opted to keep the weapon empty until needed.

When soldiers did need the grenade launcher, they wanted a better round, especially for urban combat. “Some mentioned the need for a buckshot-type round,” the Army’s report said.

Marines, however, asked for something more like what enemy Iraqi forces carried: a rocket-propelled grenade, which had a range beyond what the M-203 could offer. The Marine report stated that the desire stemmed from the rocket-propelled grenades having been the most effective weapon used against them.

 

Shotguns

Both soldiers and Marines preferred shotguns for breaching doors. The Marine report said many doors in Iraq were heavy steel and reinforced with cross bars, making battering rams ineffective.

“Most agreed that, at a minimum, small units need to have a shotgun to breach the doors,” the Marine report said.

Soldiers felt the breaching shotgun could be shortened, according to the Army report. Some soldiers replaced the stocks with purchased pistol grips, and many said they would have preferred “sawed-off” versions.

Marines, in their report, said the six shotguns issued per battalion were not enough. They wanted one per squad and opted to use slugs over 00 buckshot, which they reported didn’t work well.

4 posted on 07/14/2003 1:42:19 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Some of the best gear soldiers and Marines used in Iraq was paid for out of their own pockets.

That’s according to recent after-action reports published by the Army’s Special Operations Battle Lab and a Marine Corps Systems Command Team. Researchers from both services interviewed soldiers and Marines in locations across Iraq to learn what worked well and what needs more work.

Simple things such as uniforms and boots issued by Uncle Sam weren’t up to snuff, the troops reported. Turns out some of the best gear they had, they bought themselves.

 

Rifle slings

The over-the-shoulder look for rifles wasn’t good enough for U.S. troops. The two-point configuration, in which the sling connects at the butt stock and just forward of the hand guards, didn’t allow for easy access to a weapon when it was needed most.

The three-point sling, howver, connects the rifle to the soldier by connecting to the butt stock, the receiver and close to the sights. The configuration allows the rifle to hang free when not in use and the slings don’t entangle when the weapon is raised to fire.

Some Marine and Army units purchased “three-point” slings with unit funds. In other units, soldiers and Marines often ponied up the money to get their own.

“Soldiers are purchasing their own slings because the issued variant does not provide the flexibility or comfort they require,” the Army report stated. It added that soldiers felt the three-point slings “allowed the weapon to be slung on their back or hung on their chest so they could respond to contact faster.”

The Marine report said Marines requested a three-point sling “be issued with each M-16A2.”

 

Holsters

Dissatisfaction with the current M-9 9 mm holster was so strong that the Army report said plainly, “The issued 9 mm holster is not used.”

The leather shoulder holsters didn’t hold up well in the sandblasted Iraqi environment. An alternative holster clipped on a load-bearing vest didn’t fare much better.

“If the 9 mm is your personal weapon, you don’t want to have to always wear your LBV in order to have your weapon with you,” the report said.

The alternative most troops preferred came in the form of “drop holsters,” bought with personal funds from commercial outlets. Marines paid up to $65 for holsters that looped to the belt and strapped around the leg from companies such as Special Operations Equipment.

Marines also bought “phone-cord” style lanyards — cords designed to keep the pistol connected to the body.

 

Global positioning systems

Soldiers and Marines alike preferred commercial global positioning systems to the military’s precision lightweight GPS receiver.

“As widely known, many soldiers purchase their own GPS systems rather than use the PLGR,” the Army report said. The Marine report showed that entire units bought smaller commercial GPS units for their Marines. “The commercial market produced small, lighter and more easily used GPS,” it said.

 

Uniforms

Soldiers wanted their desert-camouflaged uniforms with pockets on the sleeves, much like the new Marine Corps’ digital Marine Pattern uniform.

“Soldiers realize they will wear the IBA (Interceptor Body Armor) in almost all environments from now on,” the report stated. “The pockets on the front of the DCU are all but useless.”

To solve the pocket problem, many soldiers took matters into their own hands.

“Many soldiers have already had a tailor sew pockets on their sleeves,” the Army report stated.

Soldiers even suggested a similar move for trouser pockets — moving them to the front of the leg — because gas masks block pockets on the thighs.

 

Boots

Soldiers complained the desert combat boots’ soles were too soft and held in too much moisture. They said the soles were “easily damaged by the terrain.”

Some soldiers had their boots resoled with commercial Vibram, with mixed success. But they also found the boots lacked ventilation, preferring a boot with holes, such as the jungle boot, to allow moisture to escape. Soldiers also said the desert boots were too tight.

“Many soldiers did not use the bottom set of lace holes to reduce pressure on the top of their feet,” the Army report stated.

Although the Marine Corps didn’t field comments about the boots issued to Marines, the Army report noted “the Marine Corps Desert Boot has a very good reputation.”

5 posted on 07/14/2003 1:44:56 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

factoid page: US Infantry Weapons Guide
6 posted on 07/14/2003 1:55:23 AM PDT by KneelBeforeZod (If God hadn't meant for them to be sheared, he wouldn't have made them sheep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: KneelBeforeZod
Excellent link, kbz. Thanks.
7 posted on 07/14/2003 2:02:18 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"Some of the best gear soldiers and Marines used in Iraq was paid for out of their own pockets."

This is something I had considered recommending prior to Iraqi freedom: part of each soldier's [or marine's] gear should be selected by the soldier, similar to the 'school choice' plan. It's not always because a soldier or marine would make better choices, but it's a matter of involvement. When a soldier can visualise the effectivness of a weapon, how it would be used, etc, then when it's crunch time, the soldier would be much more effective.

I didn't make the recommendation because of the logistical need for ammo and spare parts. But it does appear that the average individual grunt continues to outsmart the brass time-and-again. Certainly, some things can be required. But, there should be room for choice.

One example is the grenade launcher:

"Soldiers thought the M-203 grenade launcher attached to the M-16 was the “weapon of choice for combat.” They praised the 40 mm grenade’s performance, but said it could have been more effective had troops been given more training with it."

Heck. How much brain power does it take to predict that grenade launchers would be a weapon of choice? Your average 12-pack drinking, pot smoking, MTV addict could have predicted that. I guess it was 'too Rambo' for the pentagon to issue one for most of the combat soldiers 20 years ago.


8 posted on 07/14/2003 2:22:01 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (Liberty or Death!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lion Den Dan; Squantos; Fred Mertz; AAABEST; Joe Brower; Sir Gawain; sauropod; harpseal; ...
I am NOT endorsing the M4 or M9, but these comments show what history shows. Soldiers have always had some level of dissatisfaction at their individual weapons.
9 posted on 07/14/2003 2:48:27 AM PDT by SLB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Glock makes some sound and very accurate .45 cal weapons. I am a average shooter, but the Glock made me look good. The M9 makes me look like I really am-average shooter.
10 posted on 07/14/2003 3:04:09 AM PDT by Tin-Legions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Safety was another concern. The M-4’s bolt can ride forward when the selector switch is on safe, allowing the firing pin to strike a bullet’s primer.

“Numerous soldiers showed us bullets in their magazines that had small dents in the primer,” the Army report said.


Ouch! That could be a real problem. In a combat situation you need to have a round chambered at all times – if not actually in combat the safety should be on and the finger on the selector.

Reliability complaints also found fault with the oil soldiers and Marines used to clean their weapons. In the dusty, sandstorm-plagued battlefields of Iraq, weapons became clogged with sand, trapped by the heavy oil, called CLP.

From my experience weapons oil has been a complaint as far back as 1966.
In Viet Nam (on Army boats) we used axle grease on the exterior of our M2s and M60s, and used motor oil on the interior.
We had a real white glove inspection from a team sent over from Fort Eustis – the only gig was on weapons maintenance. They insisted we use the issue light oil. We cleaned the weapons under their supervision and applied the light oil – and everyone watched the rust immediately form on the barrels. The issued oil was worthless in the high temperature, high humidity salt air.
One size seldom fits all.

Both soldiers and Marines also noted problems with the M-9 9 mm pistol.

But we can’t go back to the tried and true M1911 .45 pistol – unless NATO also changes.
11 posted on 07/14/2003 3:08:42 AM PDT by R. Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The over-the-shoulder look for rifles wasn’t good enough for U.S. troops. The two-point configuration, in which the sling connects at the butt stock and just forward of the hand guards, didn’t allow for easy access to a weapon when it was needed most.

But it looks good on the parade ground.
12 posted on 07/14/2003 3:12:14 AM PDT by R. Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: xzins
the little castle graphic at the bottom of that page links to some interesting stuff too!
13 posted on 07/14/2003 3:27:23 AM PDT by KneelBeforeZod (If God hadn't meant for them to be sheared, he wouldn't have made them sheep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tin-Legions
Glock bump
14 posted on 07/14/2003 3:29:41 AM PDT by Delmarksman (Keep the Criminals in Prison and leave my Guns alone. NNGL, No new gun laws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SLB
I am NOT endorsing the M4 or M9, but these comments show what history shows.

I prefer the M-1 Garand (.30-O6) or the M-1A - also known as M-14 (.308/7.62mm) with a match grade barrel. Ammunition is heavy to carry in the field, but I think they did the job better. General Patton called the Garand the greatest weapon of war ever invented for a reason.

Also, due to complaints, Ranger medics were at one time being issued HK MP5s instead of that horrible M-16 carbine. I loved that little beauty, it was so easy to carry on a sling with the heavy medic pack, gave me great close quarters firepower and I could have it right there slung over my shoulder at the ready when treating a patient.

15 posted on 07/14/2003 3:50:03 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott
I think the Thompson sub would do very good in urban combat.
16 posted on 07/14/2003 3:54:15 AM PDT by duk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: xzins
For some reason, the services don't want to come to the conclusion that the m-16 family is sub-par for actual battle conditions. They would be much better with a larger caliber weapon that doesn't jam when you need it most. At least give the guys graphite instead of that CLP crap. And the other poster was correct, that light oil they dole out will only rust your weapon immediately. And as far as pistols go (or rifles for that matter), spend the money and get our guys a sig sauer or HK in .40 cal so they can defend themselves. Some of our current crop of weapons and parts are made outside the US so why dont we just buy the best there is? Jeesh, sometimes I wonder if the people at the top are even listening.
17 posted on 07/14/2003 4:35:24 AM PDT by Rocketwolf68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The .45 stops people, but many can't get accuracy with it.

I think this is a belief that comes largely from the fact that, toward the end, many of the .45s in the military's inventory were so old that they had simply gotten worn out. Anyone who wants to see what the .45 ACP is capable of need only attend an NRA bullseye competition or IPSC match.

As for recoil, it's really not a very hard kicker. Where it got that reputation is beyond me. Any problems with it are likely due to improper grip and stance.

18 posted on 07/14/2003 4:41:11 AM PDT by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
The problem might be age.

I think it's more simple. It's rounds down range. If you get 20 rounds a year, then you're in the lucky group.

If someone gave me a bucket of rounds and told me to go get good with it, then I could do it.

Walmart's box of 550 rounds for 10 bucks remains one of the best reasons why low caliber Ruger match pistols are deadly. There's not much knockdown power, but you can put 3 or 4 rounds in the target as fast as you can pull the trigger. Why? Because you practice, practice, practice.

Soldiers generally love to go to the range. They gripe about some of the range safety rules. But they gripe most about the number of rounds they get. Shooting is fun. Going all that distance to shoot 2 clips is stupid AND demoralizing.
19 posted on 07/14/2003 4:53:22 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Current M16A2s, M4s and other 5.56mm weapons use a 62-grain bullet, informally known as the SS-109. Been that way for many years if not almost 2 decades. I forget the official nomenclature or DODAC number.

The 55-grain round was used in the M16/M16A1. It can be used in the A2 or higher, but the DODAC number is rare in the inventory.
20 posted on 07/14/2003 5:01:57 AM PDT by A Simple Soldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-217 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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