Army, Marines rate weapon success (M16A2/A4; M4; M9)

Stars and Stripes, European Edition ^ | Sunday, July 13, 2003 | Mark Oliva

[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.

[archy]

'Course, the 60 was good against light armored targets.. when it wasn't jamming.
Or misfiring.
Or having the feedtray go bizzak and jam up.
Or the advance crudding up and jamming.....

Shame on you!....to speak ill of the M60..

It's clear you've never had your position covered by M60s set up with interlocking fields of fire -- keeping the bad guy at bay all night.....with it's beautiful tracer rounds announcing and describing an unavoidable tight killing pattern...

Even the finest women in the world, require care, love and forgiveness from time to time.....but they're worth it..

The M60 was the same, in my book..

The only guys permitted to curse the M60, was the poor bastard that had to carry it!

Carping about the M60, more happily known as *the pig* among my bunch, is nothing new under the sun. And nothing new for troopies in general; nothing new at all:

Now all you recruities what's drafted to-day,
You shut up your rag-box an' 'ark to my lay,
An' I'll sing you a soldier as far as I may:
A soldier what's fit for a soldier.
Fit, fit, fit for a soldier . . .

...

But the worst o' your foes is the sun over'ead:
You must wear your 'elmet for all that is said:
If 'e finds you uncovered 'e'll knock you down dead,
An' you'll die like a fool of a soldier.
Fool, fool, fool of a soldier . . .

...

When first under fire an' you're wishful to duck,
Don't look nor take 'eed at the man that is struck,
Be thankful you're livin', and trust to your luck
And march to your front like a soldier.
Front, front, front like a soldier . . .

...

When 'arf of your bullets fly wide in the ditch,
Don't call your Martini a cross-eyed old bitch;
She's human as you are -- you treat her as sich,
An' she'll fight for the young British soldier.
Fight, fight, fight for the soldier . . .

-Rudyard Kipling

-archy-/-

[archy]

That AR-15 'Boom-Schwing!' drives me crazy.

An Australian young ladyfriend of mine describes it as akin tio the sound that an aluminum screen door makes when pulled shut by the door spring. I wish she hadn't told me that; her description remains with me every time I fire an M16 or AR15 and I hear that noise of the spring and buffer inside the buttstock.

Though the FAL, BAR and Browning Auto-Five shotguns similarly house their recoil mechanisms inside their buttstocks, they at least all project a feeling of bobustness in their innards, no more fragile than a steam locomotive's. That can't quite be said for Eugine Stoner's aluminum and plastic brainchild, but wooden buttstocks and steel lower receivers are available for the Armalite rifle. I doubt if it'd change the perception, though.

There is, however, another alternative....

-archy-/-

[archy]

Bullet trap rifle grenades are just the ticket. Flat trajectory...lots of KA-RUMP on the other end. Everyone becomes a grenadier.

I agree that bullet trap grenades are desirable, but not for the reason you suggest.

Yep, particularly at night, and especially against light armoured vehicles, *Wheelies* and mech infantry fighting vehicles, giving every rifleman 4 to 6 light rifle-launched grenades, using a derivitive warhead from a 40mm HEDP round or Rockeye bomblet is a useful addition to the 3 or 4 LAWs a rifleman might carry, especially now that we're going back to the SMAW bazooka/RPG launcher equivalent, carried by a dedicated gunner with advanced optics. Having enemy AFV crews know that in addition to that gunner who can kill them through their frontal armor, they have just as serios concerns with their side and rear flanks, as well as the possibility of longer-ranged platoon or company AT weapons to ruin their day.

But at the fire team level those *baby grenades* can have another use, with the development of a light electrically-fired launch cartridge that can be popped with a Claymore clacker. Place the so-loaded AT grenade, nose up, in a foot-deep hole, run the legwire to the command det position, and wait for the hostile vehicle to cross the chokepoint chosen: a bridge approach, intersection, or pass where it has to pass its thinnest belly armor directly over the surprise waiting below. Think of it as a Claymore, but for tracks or tanks, and serve while hot.

If the drivers don't cooperate, no problem; the grenades can still be used as grenades, along with the LAWS or SMAWS, M203s with HEDP, and any other antiarmor weapons handy. The more weapons infantry has to kill armor, especially light armor in close, the better off they are, and the less likely that an effective countermeasure that might defeat one such AT system or reduce its effectiveness will be able to work against all of them.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... You know about the Canadian NAACO *Brigadeer*? Or the Australian Owen [no relation to the top-fed WWII SMG of the same name]..."

That hideous thing looks like the 'Planet Of The Apes' version of a TEC-9.

Here's the Planet Of The Apes version of the 'Detective Special':

[PatrioticAmerican]

" with a ten foot container per each 4 man squad, loaded with everything from .22 hushpuppies to .50 calibers!"

Talk about something that can make a man feel inadequate! Jeez.

[archy]

That hideous thing looks like the 'Planet Of The Apes' version of a TEC-9.

Not hardly; more akin to a Browning Hi-Power combined with a S&W M59, but in a hotter .45 caliber number [think of a 1950s cross between the .45 ACP and the .44 AutoMag cartridge] with a single action trigger, and aluminum slide with steel breech insert [like the Sig 226]. There was even a shoulder-stocked selective fire version available.

Yeah, the prototypes were kind of clunky. So was the prototype Browning GP.

[archy]

" with a ten foot container per each 4 man squad, loaded with everything from .22 hushpuppies to .50 calibers!"

Talk about something that can make a man feel inadequate! Jeez.

We had something like that, though ours was mobile.

Three beltfed machineguns, a 90mm cannon, a couple of .45 greaseguns and a salvaged Thompson, an M79 and AK, sometimes an M14 and shotgun as well, plus a .50 M2 for the boss, and a lot of the time, there were three of us instead of four. M1911A1 .45 pistols for all, plus my Browning GP and my driver's .38 sixgun, plus ammo, 10,000 rounds just for the .30 caliber MG, and around 50 for that 90mm- High Explosive, HEAT, Canister and WP, among other possibilities. Called an M48A3, it was.

Well, sometimes we were mobile....

<img src="http://www.rjsmith.com/images/sunken-tank.jpg

[PatrioticAmerican]

I guess that would do it, too. The SEALS have nice "tool chests". Comparing the SEAL budget to the SF budget, I know some SF guys who say they just follow the SEALs around and gather what falls off them.

[PatrioticAmerican]

A friend of mine calls the AR the "bunny gun", because it makes a "boing" sound like a cartoon bunny hopping along.

[Travis McGee]

Were they shooting Martinis in the Zulu wars?

[Travis McGee]

Is that a young Jane Fonda fondling that phallic symbol?

[Travis McGee]

I guess a tank could have its advantages!

An advantage of the SEALs is that in the budget, they are being compared to aircraft carriers, nuke subs, F-18s etc.

"Only" a few 100 million for specwar sounds cheap!

[archy]

Is that a young Jane Fonda fondling that phallic symbol?

Yep. That's a Rockeye shaped charge *bomblet* or sub-munition, as used against tanks, or in this case, North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun positions.

The NVA didn't like them one bit, and had their mouthpieces protest against their use, hence the pic of Hanoi Jane fondling that one.

Rather a pity that particular one didn't cut loose and hoist her with her own petard.

-archy-/-

[archy]

Were they shooting Martinis in the Zulu wars?

Oh yes; very much so, as at the fights at Rorke's Drift and Islandwana. First fielded in June of 1871 as the Martini-Henry Mark I in .450 caliber, then in three following Marks and several *pattern* variants including cavalry and artillerists' carbines and a smaller caliber cadets' training rifle. With the adoption of the .303 Service Rifle cartridge in a black powder loading in 1888, many were rebarrelled for the new load...and a few new ones produced with that chambering, as were some *C pattern versions in a .402 caliber, most of which were rebarrelled to the .450 caliber in hopes of standardidizing the hodgepodge; Service Gatling guns were chambered for the .450 and other cartridges as well.

"I am inclined to think, that the first experience of the Martini-Henrys will be such a surprise to the Zulus, that they will not be formidable after the first effort."

Lord Chelmsford, 23 November, 1878

[PatrioticAmerican]

Maybe this is sensitive info, but what is a round number for the SEALs annual budget? Do you know?

[dcwusmc]

I am rather fond of the old 106 Recoilless with the .50 cal spotting rifle, the one which said to the target, "If you think THIS is bad, you SURE ain't gonna like what's coming next!"

Mounted singly on the old mechanical Mule or the 6-pack on an ONTOS, it was a real winner of a weapon!

[ConservativeLawyer]

Bump for later reference.