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.
They've been pretty much put on the shelf as no one appreciated the amount of heat exiting the weapon along with the spent case during development. Caseless had cook-off problems.
Yes, that's the one. And they'll soon be manufactured here in the U.S., I believe.
The XM8 rifle under consideration to replace the M4 carbine and many of the M16A2 rifles is a little different in form from the German G-36, though derived thereof. But ongoing troop trials with the preproduction versions may yet reveal some overlooked flaws or disadvantages deemed worthy of correction, so the final production version could vary considerably. We shall see.
They've been pretty much put on the shelf as no one appreciated the amount of heat exiting the weapon along with the spent case during development. Caseless had cook-off problems.
As well as problems with extraction/ejection of unfired rounds when a caseless round had been chambered but it was not necessary to fire, and it was washed to unload the weapon without firing it.
There are still some interesting caseless ammunition applications going on in the fields of submachineguns and shotguns. But insofar as the infantryman's primary rifle, the ammunition technology is not developed to that extent yet.
I'd like to see an M14 with a folding stock. There was an EYEtalian knockoff of the M14 called the BM59 (I think) that had a paratroop style folding wire stock. That'd be the ticket!
Well it is in one way. The 123-grain 7,62x39mm bullet can be loaded in the 7,62x53r/7,62x54r full-length cartridge to make a more comfortable and less brutally recoiling load with less flash at night; particularly in Mosin Nagant M38 and M44 carbines.
Just as easily the same .311-.312 bullet can be used in loads for the .303 British, 7,65 Mauser *Argentine* [and Belgian] and 7,7mm Jap, among others. And the .312 hollowpoint bullets meant for the H&R .32 magnum pistol can be loaded into the above cartridges as well; all in the appropriate cartridge cases, of course. There've also been adapters made to allow the use of the 7,62x25mm Tokarev or 7,65 Mauser pistol cartridge in 7,62x54r chambered rifles and some 7,62x39mm weapons for single-shot indoor practice at very reduced ranges; 50 feet or so.
But as a complete loaded round, you're quite correct; they're not at all interchangable.
-archy-/-
Check out #85 and let us know what you think. Most of us who've successfully used one tool or another to keep ourselves alive are understandably in favor of that which we know has worked, extremely disinclined toward that which we've seen let others down, and suspicious of anything that claims to be *new!* *Improved!* and the greatest thing since bread sliced the short way.
Accordingly, the opinions of rookies who'll soon be getting more experience than they'll be happy about and intelligent and aware observers like yourself who will hopefully miss out on that horror but still maintain a serious concern are worthy of note too. So take a look and see what you think, and let us know.
-archy-/-.
Not quite. The Finns continue to use the original 7,62x39mm AK round, both in their first-issue m/62 Valmet rifles and the most recent m/92 version. They've also obtained a great many East German MpiKms folding stock versions and Chinese type 56-1 variants.
From a web site on the subject, http://www.competitionshooting.com/pages/708565/:
"The 6.5 PPC is able to equal or exceed the ballistic performance of the 7.62 NATO / .308 in terms of retained velocity, trajectory and wind deflection while operating with 50% less recoil. (6.5 PPC 123 grain @ 2750 fps = 7 lbs vs. 7.62 NATO 185 grain @ 2500 fps = 14 lbs: Reference- 5.56 NATO 77 grain @ 2850 fps = 4 lbs) ".
It will be interesting to see where they go with this. A relatively small increase in weight gives a very large increase in power over the .223 with this cartridge.
I've owned a couple of MP44s/StG44s, even had one in high school I bought from one of my dad's fellow American Legion post members for all of $50- he couldn't find ammo for it. Now, one magazine is worth more than that, and I got eight with it. I always wanted one of the Mkb42(h) prototypes, but the one I saw that was for sale was at a time when I was short the cash required to carry.
Back in 1976 and '77 I carried an MP44 *for real* as something with a little more range than the folding-buttstock Uzi I kept under the dashboard of the Volkswagon Rabbit I was driving at the time. I practiced going out of the sunroof and could be out and on the ground in under three seconds.
The MP44 is more controllable than the AK, which it oughta be, being less powerful and 12 pounds heavy, near the weight of a BAR. The one I've really wanted to wring out over a long period was the FG42 in the full-power 7,92x57mm Mauser caliber. I've shot 'em a couple of times, but really getting a chance to use one has eluded me so far.
-archy-/-
The only interchangeability I have found is that the 7.62X51(NATO) round will chamber and fire from the 7.62X54(Russian) Mosin-Nagant. Once.
Extraction is another problem - the Mosin-Nagant requires the uniquely thick rim of the 7.62X54 for the extractor to grab and pull the shell fron the barrel. Also, there appears to be some slight brass swelling on firing.
In fact, the unnamed person I know who tried this ended up having to drive the brass from the chamber from the muzzle end with a ramrod. But this was primarily because the idiot at Sears who sold the rifle ($15.00 for the "sporterized" version circa 1966) included a box of NATO surplus ammo with it. Hell, Dad didn't know the difference (woops!). The gun was never fired again until I figgered out what it was about 1974 and bought the appropriate ammo for it.
That's when I found out Mosin-Nagant was Russian for "big muzzle flash".
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.