Army, Marines rate weapon success

The plans seemed flawless, and the courage of the soldiers and Marines unflappable.

But with the dust settling — and the adrenaline rush of battle now subsiding — military officials are finding some weapons performed as advertised. Others, however, let troops down when they needed them most.

Army and Marine officials recently released after-action reports compiling what was right and what was wrong about the small arms with which troops squared off against Iraqi forces. Soldiers and Marines rated the rifles and pistols they carried into battle, and not all got perfect scores.

Soldiers and Marines relied on variants of the M-16 rifle. The M-16, in service since the early days of the Vietnam War, was highly criticized then as unreliable, often jamming during firefights. Soldiers who participated in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan also complained the M-4 variant, a shorter version of the M-16, lacked what they needed in combat.

Most soldiers carried the M-4 into battle in Iraq and “were very satisfied with this weapon,” according a report from the Army’s Special Operations Battle Lab. “It performed well in a demanding environment, especially given the rail system and accompanying sensors and optics.”

Marines carried the older and larger M-16A2 rifles, but a report from the Marine Corps Systems Command Liaison Team stated: “Many Marines commented on desire for the shorter weapon vice the longer M-16s.”

One Marine told the team that the shorter rifle would have been better in confined urban battle. Some also said the smaller rifle would have been easier to handle when climbing in and out of trucks and armored vehicles.

“Several Marines even opted to use the AK-47s that had been captured from Iraqi weapons caches,” the Marine report stated. “Others were trading rifles for pistols to go into buildings to allow for mobility in confined spaces.”

Marine Corps officials announced late last year that infantry forces would soon switch from the M-16A2 to the M-16A4, a heavier-barreled version of the long rifle with a rail system like the M-4. Stocks of the weapons, however, arrived in Kuwait too late to be fielded and sighted for battle. Most stayed in storage, but some weapons were delivered to Marines under a plan to initially field one per squad.

A number of M-16A4 rifles, fitted with a 4X scope, were given to Marine rifleman. The combination, Marines said, allowed them to “identify targets at a distance, under poor conditions, and maintained ability to quickly acquire the target in close-in environment[s].”

But not all soldiers and Marines were enamored with the performance of their rifles. Complaints centered on lack of range and reliability problems.

“The most significant negative comment was reference [to] the M-4’s range,” the Army report stated. “In the desert, there were times where soldiers needed to assault a building that may be 500+ meters distant across open terrain. They did not feel the M-4 provided effective fire at that range.”

Safety was another concern. The M-4’s bolt can ride forward when the selector switch is on safe, allowing the firing pin to strike a bullet’s primer.

“Numerous soldiers showed us bullets in their magazines that had small dents in the primer,” the Army report said.

Reliability complaints also found fault with the oil soldiers and Marines used to clean their weapons. In the dusty, sandstorm-plagued battlefields of Iraq, weapons became clogged with sand, trapped by the heavy oil, called CLP.

Several Washington Post articles recalling the night the 507th Maintenance Company was ambushed recounted moments when soldiers in the convoy, including Pfc. Jessica Lynch, battled their weapons to continue fighting Iraqi irregular forces.

“In the swirling dust, soldiers’ rifles jammed,” one article reported. “Pfc. Patrick Miller, 23, from suburban Wichita, began shoving rounds into his rifle one at a time, firing single shots at enemies swarming all around.”

“We had no working weapons,” Sgt. James Riley told The Washington Post. “We couldn’t even make a bayonet charge — we would have been mowed down.”

“The sand is as fine as talcum powder,” the report stated. “The CLP attracted the sand to the weapon.”

Unlike the soldiers’ reports after Afghanistan, Marines in Iraq said the 5.56 mm round fired from the M-16 “definitely answered the mail” and “as long as shots were in the head or chest, they went down.” The Marine reports said many were initially skeptical of the small rounds’ performance against the heavier 7.62 mm round fired from AK-47s. There were reports of enemy being shot and not going down, but most were referencing non-lethal shots on extremities.

Still, “there were reports of targets receiving shots in the vitals and not going down. These stories could not be described, but are of the rare superhuman occurrences that defy logic and caliber of round.”

The M-16 series of rifles fires a 55-grain bullet, a projectile that weighs slightly more than three-and-a-half grams. Some servicemembers believe a heavier-grained bullet would carry more energy downrange, creating greater knockdown power.

“There was general dissatisfaction with this weapon,” the Army report said. “First and foremost, soldiers do not feel it possesses sufficient stopping power.”

But soldiers and Marines alike railed against the poor performance of the M-9 ammunition magazines.

“The springs are extremely weak and the follower does not move forward when rounds are moved,” the Marine report stated. “If the magazine is in the weapon, malfunctions result.”

Soldiers complained that even after they were told to “stretch” the springs and load only 10 rounds instead of the maximum 15, the weapons still performed poorly. Lack of maintenance was determined not to be the cause.

“Multiple cleanings of the magazine each day does not alleviate the problem,” the Marine report stated. “The main problem is the weak/worn springs.”

Still, Marines wanted more pistols to back up their rifles, especially in urban environments, according to the report.

If range and accuracy are the primary concern, they would be better off with a 6.5mm. Hell, they could just neck down 7.62 NATO. Flatter trajectory, way more effective range, and better penetration in the same size package.

7.62 is really the wrong answer to just about any problem the military has these days. Like the 9mm, the only reason it is around is due to legacy issues. There are reasons those cartridges have been dumped in various times and places. We don't need to move backwards, we need to move forward.

6.5 mm is the way to go. Longer effective range than the 5.56, flatter shooting, and the bullets are a bunch heavier. This answers all of the concerns that the folks in combat haved raised (besides the lube issue, and that is independent of what rifle our forces use). I don't think that it would be too hard to put a 6.5 mm upper on an M-16 lower, but that doesn't much matter - for what Uncle pays for rifles (a couple of hundred bucks), I say to just buy brand-spanking-new rifles and mags. Since all soldiers are familiar with handling and sighting in on M-16 variants, keep the same look - but beef up the caliber. If I were in charge, I would put the M-4's sighting system on all of these new rifles.

And .45 is the way to go in combat, since you are restricted to FMJ by treaty. Hollowpoint 9's are fine, but the military can't use them. And if you could use hollowpoints, why wouldn't you want to use a .45 cal. "flying ashtray" anyway?

And .45 is the way to go in combat, since you are restricted to FMJ by treaty.

You are probably better off with a .40, and some modern non-NATO militaries have in fact adopted it (Australia comes to mind). Most of the cartridge capacity and ballistic performance of a 9mm, a fair portion of the size and weight of a .45, and more down-range energy than either 9mm or .45. The .40 splits the middle pretty damn well for a human-killing cartridge.

That we use either .45 or 9mm at all is primarily a legacy of previous wars, and the engineering assumptions that went into both of those cartridges is a century old. One thing to remember about the .45 was that it was originally marketed as a ranch pistol for plugging critters before it was adopted by the US military. There are certain biases evident in the design of both the cartridge and the pistol as to its original intended purpose that make it sub-optimal as a combat cartridge. The 9mm has better engineering parameters for the purposes of a combat cartridge, but nonetheless suffers from being a bit smaller than what is probably optimal for spanking determined monkeys.

The M-16A1 thru A4 are attempts to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Witness the number of changes made to the design. Bolt assist, a ejected case deflector, three shot burst limiter, hand guard, new ammunition, new rifle twist rate, new sighting system, new flash hider, the list is endless. The M1911 has had ONE. And those were all ergonomic. The original M-16 was developed by Gene Stoner, and marketed by Armalite.

Back in ’61, when I was about 12, an Armalite sales rep staged a demonstration for our county sheriff’s department at the local police range. Since my father was the state Hi-Power expert, he was invited to observe, and I got to go along.

The AR-15 was employed on a cinder wall, and blew it apart. I got to shoot it because the sales rep was trying to sell it on the fact that it had light recoil, as compared to the M-1. One trick he used was to place the butt against his chin and fire single shots.

The sheriff was underwhelmed. These were the days when police departments still cared what the citizens thought of them, and EVERYONE was a combat vet. A series of the 5.56mm rounds, impacting on a soft target, at ranges of 100 yards or less, tends to separate the target into large, soggy pieces. Blowing a felon apart in the middle of downtown was considered bad form, back then.

The Air Force, however, under Curtis LeMay, were the first to adopt the Armalite, for the SAC Air Police, during the early part of the JFK love affair with the Green Beanies. LeMay was hot to get funding, was jealous of what he considered undue attention being paid to what he considered a bunch of muddy, smelly snake eaters, and loved the latest Buck Rodgers toys. He wanted to show that zoomies could crawl thru the weeds with the best of them.

The Army adopted the Mattie Mattel because attempts to teach doggies how to shoot, without actually spending time snapping in, and further time living, eating and worshiping the great God, Rifle, were a failure. The current issue weapon, the M-14, required that the rifleman be comfortable with shooting. Instead, with the M-16, there was the “quickshoot” training, where the troopies were taught to replace aimed shot placement with “suppressing fires”, (spraying the area in hopes of a hit, witness the duplex round as another such attempt) by walking down a path and blasting away on full auto at pop-up targets.

The ARVNs got them next, when even the Five-Sided Square finally determined that the average dink was too small to handle a surplus M-1, and that the M-1 carbine can’t kill very well.

Well into Da'Nam, The Corps liked the idea of being able to shoot thru a palm tree and kill the man behind it.

The polite, Democratic, fiction that the ’16 was meant to wound and not kill, thus occupying 3 more caring individuals and burdening the logistics, is just that, fiction. An M-16 will rip a man to bits with one burst, at 75 meters. At 750 meters, you're just going to piss him off. Any wounded the VC, and later the NVA cared for, were most often injured by shell fragments. Care of the wounded is contingent on access to prompt medical treatment. Too often, mercy to the wounded is a bullet in the head. A man who has been gutted like a fish can live a surprisingly long time, and will scream every second of the rest of his life. Tactics indicate that whoever goes after him will get shot. Traumatic injuries often will not allow the injured man to politely bleed to death, and shock is not always a reliable anesthetic. When you add to the equation that if the Other side gets hold of him, they will see how long They can prolong his suffering, like sticking his wedding tackle on a twig several feet away, or peeling him like a banana, a bullet now is not such a bad offer.

The M-14 can be fired dry. This is not such a bad thing in the desert. The '14 is, however, too large for your average half-starved "freedom fighter."

Until the Geneva Convention is ignored, and frangible bullets are allowed, the 9mm will remain a joke. I watched a Spook who decided to bring his 9mm Swedish "K" gun on a snoop and poop in the Weeds. Events were that he emptied a full mag into a really P.O.d dink, who was about ready to gut the spook with a knife when a 12 Ga. loaded with dimes removed a big piece of meat and Mr. Charles went down...

If you have to let a bad guy, who you have seen approaching for the last week get within 100 meters to be able to put him away, there is something wrong with your weapon.

Well, you've got some strong opinions. Let me answer 'em briefly.

changes to the M16: they were made for all kinds of different reasons. The deflector was for lefties; the round and twist rate required because the Marines wanted to shoot at stuff 800 yards away. The forward assist was a reaction to a screwup: Army bureaucrats changed the powder in the ammunition to an unsuitable load. The sights and handguard are product improvements -- that happens to a 40 year old product. The 3-shot burst is just retarded. It's what they do instead of training soldiers properly. I dunno why the Marines have it too -- they train their guys better. But you know, look at the generic 1911s in any gunshop and you'll see a lot more variation. Heck, look at the guns at a high-power match.
A series of 5.56 rounds into a human at 100 yards makes holes in the human... it don't shred him. Sounds to me like hearsay.
LeMay was a gun nut, and a gadget freak (not unusual traits in aviators). That's why he adopted the new, high-tech Stoner design. It had nothing to do with special ops. LeMay was a strategic bomber and interdiction enthusiast who cared little for what the Air Force then called the "Air Commandos." The security police are a different bunch... but one of their jobs was keeping his precious B-52s, RB-47s and B-58s safe.
The "quick kill" training for the 16 was based on training Fairbairn developed in WWII for the Commandos and SOE. It is advanced training, given AFTER the soldier masters shooting on a range. In fact, it's coming back with the SBCTs. (Special Ops never entirely gave it up, and it's part of two of their most important shooting schools).
Except for CIDG which had separate funding, Marvin the ARVN carried an M1. Until about 1970-71.
At 750 metres, you are not in rifle engagement range. You are in crew-served weapons range. There were very few places in Vietnam where you could see a man at 750 metres.
Likewise, the "half starved freedom fighters" I've worked with have no problem toting, say, a PKM and 600 rounds of ammo up a hill. Your average third world country boy is scrawny beyond belief, but he's walked his whole life and is in great cardiovascular condition.
"mercy to the wounded is a bullet in the head" sounds like something from a movie, not real life. We treated our wounded, till we medevac'd them. We also treated prisoners. The right thing to do on several levels.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

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.