This one?
Posted on 11/22/2003 1:50:36 PM PST by 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.
I feel exactly the opposite after having done the same in reverse.
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.
If they are a good practical exercise is another question.
Why is it that we don't add / mix in a few dedicated M14 (or equal)and 12 ga. shotgun carriers amongst the M4's and SAW's within a platoon?
Seems to me that it would help expand long range and close-in capabilities.
This one?
It looks like so far they are not.
You mean like this?
The M-1 carbine was too hot for a pistol round, and too wussy for a rifle. Little girls and the Army liked it though... Recoil being such a major factor for beanie wearing metrosexuals...
Those of us who read about 10th Mountain troops in Afghanistan being shelled by mortars from 1000 yards, but unable to answer back with their M-16s and M-4s probably thought it would be nice to have one Barrett M82A1 .50 BMG rifle among each platoon (depending on the mission/terrain), to handle such situations.
For immeditate reaction at short range, a shotgun might not be the right solution, because the attackers are often in cars. A short-barrel weapon firing at least .308 would be nice.
I always thought the MP-5 in a 10mm would do the trick.
5.56mm. Isn't that just your basic squirrel hunting sized .22 ? (Ok, with a little more muzzle velocity)
We may never see the good 'ol days of the 30-06 and .308 because all of the wimmin folk and the slack jawed, shallow chested boys coming into the army couldn't handle the kick like real fighting men.
If the Army is going to make infantry drag around a full size rifle it might as well give them a cartridge of at least .308.
If the Army is going to send everybody who rides around in vehicles into battle with weapon with modest range and knock down power, they might as well make it short and handy and shoot .45 or 9mm. I saw a photo from this year of a Special Forces vehicle manned by soldiers armed with Sterlings. These are basically upgraded Stens, in 9mm, issued by the Brits in the 1950s to eveybody who didn't get a full size rifle.
What ever new weapons that are adopted need to be at least as rugged the AK-47.
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.