M-16 Rifle May Be on Way Out of U.S. Army

AP, Yahoo! ^ | 11-22-03 | Slobodan Lekic

[Ex-Dem]

BAGHDAD, Iraq - After nearly 40 years of battlefield service around the globe, the M-16 may be on its way out as the standard Army assault rifle because of flaws highlighted during the invasion and occupation of Iraq (news - web sites).

U.S. officers in Iraq say the M-16A2 — the latest incarnation of the 5.56 mm firearm — is quietly being phased out of front-line service because it has proven too bulky for use inside the Humvees and armored vehicles that have emerged as the principal mode of conducting patrols since the end of major fighting on May 1.

The M-16, at nearly 40 inches, is widely considered too long to aim quickly within the confines of a vehicle during a firefights, when reaction time is a matter of life and death.

"It's a little too big for getting in and out of vehicles," said Brig. Gen. Martin Dempsey, commander of the 1st Armored Division, which controls Baghdad. "I can tell you that as a result of this experience, the Army will look very carefully at how it performed."

Instead of the M-16, which also is prone to jamming in Iraq's dusty environment, M-4 carbines are now widely issued to American troops.

The M-4 is essentially a shortened M-16A2, with a clipped barrel, partially retractable stock and a trigger mechanism modified to fire full-auto instead of three-shots bursts. It was first introduced as a personal defense weapon for clerks, drivers and other non-combat troops.

"Then it was adopted by the Special Forces and Rangers, mainly because of its shorter length," said Col. Kurt Fuller, a battalion commander in Iraq and an authority on firearms.

Fuller said studies showed that most of the combat in Iraq has been in urban environments and that 95 percent of all engagements have occurred at ranges shorter than 100 yards, where the M-4, at just over 30 inches long, works best.

Still, experience has shown the carbines also have deficiencies. The cut-down barrel results in lower bullet velocities, decreasing its range. It also tends to rapidly overheat and the firing system, which works under greater pressures created by the gases of detonating ammunition, puts more stress on moving parts, hurting its reliability.

Consequently, the M-4 is an unlikely candidate for the rearming of the U.S. Army. It is now viewed as an interim solution until the introduction of a more advanced design known as the Objective Individual Combat Weapon, or OICW.

There is no date set for the entry into service of the OICW, but officers in Iraq say they expect its arrival sooner than previously expected because of the problems with the M-16 and the M-4.

"Iraq is the final nail in the coffin for the M-16," said a commander who asked not to be identified.

The current version of the M-16 is a far cry from the original, which troops during the Vietnam War criticized as fragile, lacking power and range, and only moderately accurate. At the time, a leading U.S. weapons expert even recommended that American soldiers discard their M-16s and arm themselves with the Kalashnikov AK-47 rifle used by their Vietcong enemy.

Although the M16A1 — introduced in the early 1980s — has been heavily modernized, experts say it still isn't as reliable as the AK-47 or its younger cousin, the AK-74. Both are said to have better "knockdown" power and can take more of a beating on the battlefield.

[elmer fudd]

Quite true, but you can fire 7.62 NATO out of rifles chambered for the 7.62x54R cartridge. I had to clear a stuck cartridge out of my nephews Moisin Nagant after he had done just that. It was fire formed to a new and interesting shape.

[Iris7]

Fired a magazine through an FG 42 once. Needs a trained trigger finger. Easy to spray, something of a recoil heave.

The following paragraph is not aimed at you, but at the non-expert reader.

War weapons end up heavy and simple. Peacetime weapons end up lightweight, expensive, and unreliable in war. Peacetime tanks usually end up underamoured, though not much since the Chieftain. Leopard II looks very good. Abrams is OK. That Army eight wheeler Stryker looks like a real abortion, everything but a kitchen sink, with lots of video games. The Marine eight wheeler is much better. The M16 is deeply flawed. The M60 is a copy of the MG42 made by folks who didn't understand what they were doing. The Russians make the best body armor per dollar by far. The list goes on.

[PoorMuttly]

Just heard a report about this M16 replacement issue on AM radio news...so I guess the ball is really in play about this issue.

[SBprone]

If length is the main issue then a bullpup design is the answer. There are already a couple in service, the Sterling with the Brits and the AUG with a few other countries. Before designing a new bullpup we should procure a few thousand of the existing designs and put them to use. It would make sense to try out the bullpups first before actually commiting to change over completely to a new weapons system.

I don't know if the Sterling uses M16 mags but a bullpup that has magazine compatiblity with the M16 that would make it easier to retain the M16 for non-mechanized troops. The M16A2 is still the best in the business for aimed slow fire.

[FreedomPoster]

Isn't the real issue with bullpup designs, that you need to have glass to get hits at any distance, due to the short sight radius of the configuration? Glass longivity and handling by mass number of troops is a real issue, and you end up with a short range weapon when the glass breaks and you have to fall back to iron sights.

[archy]

That's when I found out Mosin-Nagant was Russian for "big muzzle flash".

Especially if you use the heavy bullet loads meant for use in the DP *Emma*, PK, and Russian Maxim machineguns. Meant to rach out and scratch away at formations of troops as much as 2000 meters away, they offer a bad enough kick in a 30-inch barrelled *3-line* MosinNagant. Just as bad a mismatch: Norma 7,62x54r marked soft point hunting bullets actually loaded with .308 bullets that offer fairly minimal accuracy results in the rifles' .311 bores. The suoerb Finnish M28-30 rifles used .3082 bore diameters, and deliver excellent results with this ammo, just as they did in every international riflery competition they entered from 1927 on, though they won't shoot for beans in the average Russian bore. Find a guy with an m/28-30 pytstykorvaa and offer 'em as trade goods to ther specialists who can make use of 'em.

[archy]

Well, if the M16A2 is considered too big, what about the OICW? That thing's a bohemoth with the ergonomics of a 4x4 fencepost.

Maybe it's time for a complete redesign using established technology and not a lot of Buck Rogers stuff like on the OICW. The new rifle should be modular and ergonomic like the M16, reliable like the AK, and fire a cartridge larger than the 5.56x45 but smaller than the 7.62x51. The Korean K1/K2, Swiss STGW90, German G36 and Swedish AK5 are all excellent designs to build on.

See #85. See gentlemen; Ordnance HAS been listening....

[jonascord]

I am simply repeating what I was told. The Corps was really down on experiments involving captured weapons, so I cannot vouch for the truth of everything they told me. I never had an M-14 In Country, and I was a little shy about trying to feed M-60 ammo thru an SKS. Too many things can go wrong.
Hey, they didn't call it "Scuttlebut" for nothing...

[archy]

If length is the main issue then a bullpup design is the answer. There are already a couple in service, the Sterling with the Brits and the AUG with a few other countries. Before designing a new bullpup we should procure a few thousand of the existing designs and put them to use. It would make sense to try out the bullpups first before actually commiting to change over completely to a new weapons system.

I don't know if the Sterling uses M16 mags but a bullpup that has magazine compatiblity with the M16 that would make it easier to retain the M16 for non-mechanized troops. The M16A2 is still the best in the business for aimed slow fire.

Only the very first of the British L85/SA80 Rifles were built by Sterling, easily identifiable by their SA serial numbers. They proved unsuitable and the L86A1 version replaced them, made by RSAF Enfield, serial numbers beginning with UE, mot much better, though I used them a couple of times and they worked for me just fine. The latest versions are the L86A2, identifiable by the wider cocking handle knob, meant to allow closing the action more quickly with a slap to the bolt. The L85, L85A1 and L85A2 all used with standard M16 magazines, tho the Brits issued steel magazines otherwise identical to the US 30-round magazine.

[SBprone]

Optical sights are the coming thing. If they aren't yet robust enough for general use they soon will be. I think bullpups have been having various teething problems involving gas systems leaking and blowing off fingers, etc. Personally I wouldn't want to shoot a Sterling or an AUG for that reason, but it would be a handy weapon for an armored vehicle crew and it would hit a lot harder than an M4 with its 12" barrel.

[SBprone]

Is there any reason we shouldn't just procure the British service rifle for vehicle crews and keep the M16 for everybody else? I don't have anything against HK, but why go to the trouble of building a whole new system around a 40 year old cartridge?

[Ex-Dem]

Wow, and they complained that the M-16 looked like a toy gun...
Does indeed look like a smoother, sleeker version of the HK G36.

Oh, but I've got lots of questions for you.
What material is it made out of? Some sort of plastic composite? Does it take a grenade launcher? They aren't going to keep that ridiculous color scheme, are they?

[rdb3]

Sorry to hear this. My last qualification at Bragg was 38 for 40 with the M-16 (even though I was assigned the M-203).

Don't laugh. It wasn't everyday that a Signal soldier was made to feel, ummm, powerful.

[Ex-Dem]

38 out of 40 = Expert marksman, doesn't it?

Kudos to you!

[Axenolith]

Wasn't that the G-12? I have a solid brass model of one of the rounds and a white paper on it from the 80's. Neat concept would be cool if it worked...

[fella]

A militerized mini-14 in a bull-pup configeration might be a solution. Same ammo, rugged, reliable and less expensive.

[Euro-American Scum]

Bring back the M14!

What do you bet HK gets the new Army contract?

[Euro-American Scum]

Get your hands on an M-14. It's an improved Garand...you will appreciate the improvements.

I have a Springfield Armory M1A. Awesome weapon.

[archy]

Optical sights are the coming thing. If they aren't yet robust enough for general use they soon will be. I think bullpups have been having various teething problems involving gas systems leaking and blowing off fingers, etc. Personally I wouldn't want to shoot a Sterling or an AUG for that reason, but it would be a handy weapon for an armored vehicle crew and it would hit a lot harder than an M4 with its 12" barrel.

That, and that bullpups are difficult for lefthanders to use, or difficult for use when available cover makes lefthand use necessary even for a rightpaw. The real answer may be a weapon that ejects downward or out the front of the foreens instead of to either side.

Note that Kalishnikov's new OC-14 *Groza* bullpup retains the rightside ejection of the parent design but still manages a 16-inch barrel as per the original AK47 for ballistic effectiveness.

[archy]

A militerized mini-14 in a bull-pup configeration might be a solution. Same ammo, rugged, reliable and less expensive

The French tested the Mini-14 extensively, the reason the 3-shot burst versions of the Ruger GB military and police versions were fielded; that was one of the French requirements. They found the Ruger barrel too light, warping severely after prolonged full-auto fire and that the rifle was too lightly constructed for armored vehicle troops.

But there is a bullpup accessory stock available for the mini-14, or better, the mini 30. The trigger pull is pretty awful but might be reworked, and a better sighting arrangement, perhaps an EO tech holographic unit, is required. But until a proper downward-ejecting bullpup can be fielded, perhaps one that feeds from the top so as to make magazine changes fast and allows both a large magazine capacity and a proper prone position, your mini might do.