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.

[NMC EXP]

Same ammo + shorter barrel = higher pressure at the gas port
assuming the gas port is closer to the breech.

Regards

J.R.

[Renfield]

"...is chambered for the 5.56mm NATO. The AK-74, like all USSR leftovers, is chambered so it can either use Red Army issue ball, or captured NATO ammunition, same as the AK-47 could chamber and function with .308 Nato, and the USSR 82mm mortar could fire the NATO 81mm shell. While they could fire ours, we could not fire USSR issue...."

You are embarrassing youself here. The AK CANNOT chamber a 7.62 NATO round...it won't even fit into the magazine. And the cartridge head diamater of the Russian 5.45 round is larger than that of the NATO 5.56mm round (it's the same as the 7.62X39 round), so those rounds are not interchangeable either. Where do you come up with this nonsense?

[Renfield]

"...Chamber the M4 into a .308 round ... perfect short range battle rifle....."

Well, if you did this, it would be difficult to determine which end of the rifle packed the bigger wallop. Modern selective fire carbines are chambered for reduced-power rounds to aid in controllability.

[ought-six]

Me, I'd take the venerable M-14. Good knockdown power (7.62 mm NATO or .308 Winchester) and good range (very effective out to 500 yards). Granted, it is heavier than the M-16 and is longer, and would not be my weapon of choice for close-in fighting (I'd reserve that for the trusty old Grand-daddy of self-defense weapons:
M-1911 .45 ACP; or a 12-gauge pump with 00-buck). But for a firefight, give me the M-14.

[ought-six]

"Bring back the M14!"

You bet!

[ought-six]

Yup, the M-1 Garand was a wonderful weapon. That 173 grain, .30-06 bullet just destroyed an enemy. Talk about knock-down power. It was truly the weapon that won WWII.

[Renfield]

The real issue with Bullpups is ergonomic failure. If you shoot left-handed (like I do) and you have to use one of the bullpup-style guns, you end up with a hot cartridge case imbedded in your left cheek. Even with designs like the French FAMAS and Austrian AUG, that are convertible from right-hand to left-hand action, this conversion takes 5 or 10 minutes...not something one can do in the heat of battle. Guns need to be designed so that one can pick up his fallen comrade's rifle in battle, and use it right away without worrying about ergonomic or safety problems.

[ought-six]

"I don't think that the SKS has near the accuracy of a M16 /AR15. Also, the only jams that I have seen were with Wolf ammo."

I agree with you here. The M-16/AR-15 (military/civilian)are both more accurate than an SKS. And Wolf ammo is the worst! It is coated with a lacquer that gums up the action when heated. Terrible ammo (but cheap! cheap! cheap!) unless used in actions with very loose tolerances (like some of the bolt-action varmint rifles).

[Renfield]

"...Is there any reason we shouldn't just procure the British service rifle for vehicle crews and keep the M16 for everybody else?.."

NOBODY wants the British service rifle, not even the Brits. There are persistent rumors the the UK will soon abandon their wretched bullpup rifle, and adopt a new HK-36, or some adapted variant.

[F14 Pilot]

U might like this~!

[ought-six]

"The Ruger Ranch rifle, while it employs a Garand style gas system, (more like a shrunk M-14 type, with a gas-driven piston hitting the end of the operating rod, which cams the bolt out of lock.) is chambered for the 5.56mm NATO."

Not quite. The Ruger Ranch Rifle (a Mini-14) fires the .223 Remington round, which is the same caliber as the 5.56 mm NATO round used in M-16s, but the .223 has a slightly less-powerful cartridge. I'd not want to use 5.56 mm NATO rounds in my Ruger Ranch, and in fact Ruger strongly recommends against it.

[nuconvert]

Thanks for the ping

[gdc61]

personal friend, a gunsmith. welcome to FreeRepublic.

[gdc61]

personal friend, a gunsmith. I've seen tins for $60 in the Traders Guide as well. also, welcome to FreeRepublic.

[Iris7]

I am chagrined to have made such errors of fact as I see on re-reading my posts. Some of them I had doubts about at the time, others errors are purely of memory. I'll have to buy a few modern references, I think.

Sorry.

[El Gato]

I am chagrined to have made such errors of fact as I see on re-reading my posts. Some of them I had doubts about at the time, others errors are purely of memory. I'll have to buy a few modern references, I think.

That's what Google is for, however you have to do some cross checking and get a feel for which site are reputable and which are not.

Nothing to be sorry about, chagrin is more appropriate, just learn from your mistakes and press on.

[cpl tank]

The carbine gas port is located closer to the chamber than the gas port of the M4: 7.5 inches instead of the 13 inch distance on the M16. The gas pulse therefore enters the gas tube sooner and reaches the carrier group earlier than it does in the M16 length barrel. In addition to reaching the carrier sooner, it reaches it at higher pressure. The gas pressure at the carbine’s gas port is double that of the M16: 26,000 psi vs. 13,000 pounds per square inch.

[cpl tank]

The carbine gas port is located closer to the chamber than the gas port of the M16: 7.5 inches instead of the 13 inch distance on the M16. The gas pulse therefore enters the gas tube sooner and reaches the carrier group earlier than it does in the M16 length barrel. In addition to reaching the carrier sooner, it reaches it at higher pressure. The gas pressure at the carbine’s gas port is double that of the M16: 26,000 psi vs. 13,000 pounds per square inch.

[cpl tank]

mybad

[Billthedrill]

Holy crap! No wonder there are problems. Many thanks for digging that information up for me, I wasn't having much luck and my Army contacts are out of town at the moment...way, way out of town...