[grapeape]

Gentlemen,
I need the opinion of soldiers who have used the M-16 in a prolonged combat situation or who have interviewed them at length about their weapons.

I have found through my friends and contacts that there are many individuals in our military who are very dissatisfied with the M-16. As a person who is politically active, I am interested in effecting change in this area if it is warranted.

I would like to know if you think that this weapon should be changed to something else. Should there be a competition to change it or should the pentagon reissue new specs first.

All of this assumes the new weapon could fit into the Army’s “Land Warrior” system if need be.

Thanks for your time,
Grapeape

[Sparta]

I'm not presently in the armed forces, though I'm joining the ROTC in college.

I believe the M-16 should go. My problem with it is the caliber (5.56 NATO). It just simply isn't powerful enough. Also, the M-16 is having jamming problems again (however, these can be prevented by daily cleanings of the weapon) I favor going to a 6mm caliber based on the action of either the FAL or the German G-3.

However, if we decide to stay with 5.56 NATO, I think either the G-36 from Germany (already a part of the XM-29 program) or the FN2000 from Belgium is a better bet.

I would like to see open competition for the new battle rifle instead of the Pentagon issuing specs. The Pentagon can modify it to their specs after the rifle has been chosen.