PDA

View Full Version : Vietnam-era M16 rifle shows its weaknesses in Iraq combat



thedrifter
11-30-03, 12:42 PM
Vietnam-era M16 rifle shows its weaknesses in Iraq combat
Slobodan Lekic, Associated Press

Published November 30, 2003 RIFL30

BAGHDAD -- 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.

U.S. officers in Iraq say the M-16A2 -- the latest incarnation of the 5.56 millimeter 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 military transportation since the end of major combat 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 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 the 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, 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, decreasing its reliability.

Consequently, the M-4 is an unlikely candidate for rearming the 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.

"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 kill 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 assault rifle used by the Viet Cong.

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.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1762/4235739.html


Sempers,

Roger
:marine:

reddog4950
12-29-03, 06:42 PM
In the Nam we used the M-16 , I feel it was a poor rifle at the time, but it has had many corrections made from the first ones.
For long range I prefer the MP40 .308. For the war now being fought I feel the MP5 would be a good choice for the area.:marine:

RichLundeen
12-29-03, 07:05 PM
I always had an occasional jam at the range, both with the A1 and 2.

I still use an AR for three gun compititions, albeit with substantial machining to match two upper assys (a standard upper and a bull barrel, match grade upper) with my lower. I selected it, of course, because I am most familiar with this weapon, and wouldn't have to start from 'zero'.

A much nicer weapon than the one you'd pull from the armory, and fired in much 'nicer' eviromental conditions. Still jams once in a while.

Semper Fi

Rich

peepaw
12-29-03, 07:27 PM
Oh yea the good old M16. Thanks to it I got my Purple Heart while trying to unjam mine in Nam. Light and firepower but I think it is time for something better. SF ED F 2/3 67

RichLundeen
12-29-03, 07:36 PM
Yup I agree Ed!

Thanks for your service, Marine!

Every time I jam, I think 'damn! I'm glad no one is shooting BACK!'

Actually the Marine Corps Times had an article a while back, about the 16 vs (I forgot the designation). Like the Molly pack fiasco, they selected the 16 over a superior offering. Maybe a bean counter influenced decision, I'll have to look for better info on both issues.

Semper Fi

Rich

Tom D
12-29-03, 08:47 PM
It has had it's share of problems. I neither loved it or hated it. Sounds like it needs to be replaced.

reddog4950
01-10-04, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by Tom D
It has had it's share of problems. I neither loved it or hated it. Sounds like it needs to be replaced.


It saved my @ss many a times so $hit what would we be saying, not so bad right.:D Fuching A

namgrunt
02-01-04, 03:08 AM
I never liked the M-16. We had our M-14s taken away one hot afternoon in RVN, and were issued Mattel Specials as our new battle rifle. We had that one afternoon to become totally familiar with the intricacies of the new toys, then were sent out on normal combat operations. The M-16 I had failed to feed properly, the bolt lugs creased cartridge casings, and it felt flimsy.

Worse yet was when a bayonet was clicked in place. The pistol grip felt unnatural when parrying or thrusting. A decent buttstroke was out of the question without moving your hand away from the trigger housing, in order to grip the thin portion of the buttstock/buffer assembly. Then you had to return the trigger hand to the pistol grip, in case someone levelled a weapon at you from beyond 3 meters.

Each man having a selector switch required a re-think of the organization of the standard fireteam. You didn't have a designated Automatic Rifleman anymore, since all members had equal capability in their hands. In the thick of a firefight, it was too easy for a man to sneak his selector to full auto, and burn off a magazine of ammo.

I know improvements came down the pipe, but not before I was evacuated out of country. Thanks, but no thanks. I never had a weapons malfunction with the old M-14. I'm just an old dinosaur when it comes to weapons.

namgrunt

yellowwing
02-01-04, 03:32 AM
The Discovery Channel (or was is History Channel?) had a documentary on M-16 vs AK-47. Side by side, the only real advantage of our weapon was ability to carry more ammo. But with a 7.62x49 you can shoot through trees! The 47 was such a success that they couldn't sell superior AK-74 in any real volume.