Good riddance M-16

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Bigbro RE:shed some light on this then, someone 1/1/2006 12:41:18 PM

A suggestion, load a 62 gr. +/- match bullet to the same velocity and pressure as the ss109. This could then be used in rifles with a 1/9 twist barrel, have the same point of impact as the ss109 so that rezero is not needed when changing ammo, greatly reduce over penitration in QBC operations, result in an increase in accuracy of at least 50% and increase wound volume by 4 to 8X in the first 2" of penitration of soft tissue. You would still maintain the ss109/m885 for operations that are best suited for it. The light match qbc ammo could be loaded on the existing production lines with the same powder and same powder charge as the ss109/m885 so production would not be hampered. With an optic sight hits to 275 meters on a 6" target with an M16/AR15 are easy from a supported rest if the ammo is accurate. I base this on using the .223 for 25 years, out of a number of rifles and seeing the terminal effects of the type of bullet I am proposing on animals up to 160#'s. A low cost solution to a number of issues. Bb

Quote Reply

Bigbro RE:shed some light on this then, someone 1/2/2006 12:38:54 AM

my bad, 855 not 885?

Quote Reply

Nichevo RE:Double Tap & War crimes-HS 1/2/2006 4:34:36 AM

Thank you, now THIS is informative.

Quote Reply

PowerPointRanger M-16 vs. 7.62mm 1/4/2006 8:57:47 PM

It appears I'm not alone in my view that the M-16 is unreliable and lacks needed power. Check out (from this site): link "Moreover, the 5.56mm round is less effective in urban fighting, where you often want to shoot through doors and walls. The 5.56mm round is not as effective at doing this as is the heavier 7.62mm bullet. And the troops have plenty of 7.62mm weapons available, in order to compare. There is the M240 medium machine-gun. While this 7.62mm weapon is usually mounted on vehicles, it is often taken off and used by infantry for street fighting. Lots of 1960s era 7.62mm M14 rifles have also been taken out of storage and distributed. While used mainly as sniper rifles, the snipers do other work on the battlefield as well, and the troops have been able to see that the heavier 7.62mm round does a better job of shooting through cinder block walls, and taking down bad guys with one shot. Too often, enemy troops require several 5.56mm bullets to put them out of action." "The other big complaint about the M16 is it?s sensitivity to fine dust, as found in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. This stuff causes the rifle (and the light machine-gun version, the M249), to jam. Troops have to be cleaning these weapons constantly." And if that isn't enough, check out this report on the ambush of Jessica Lynch's convoy: link "Contributing factors that led to the others being killed, dying from injuries or taken as prisoners of war were heavy vehicles that were unable to maneuver in the desert terrain and malfunctioning weapons, according to the report. The report states numerous times that M-16 rifles malfunctioned or jammed."

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:M-16 vs. 7.62mm 1/4/2006 10:13:31 PM

Wow. You've dug up a blurb that was the topic of discussion, oh, about two month ago. link Just to speed things up, I'll recycle my initial thoughts on this matter, but the subsequent comments by other people was equally telling (namely that strategy page apparently paid someone to recycle a bogus "email from Iraq"). Note that apparently someone at Strategy Page realized just how stupid that write up made them look, and at least corrected the original "M243 light machinegun version of the M16" to "M249" (but failed to correct any of the other various errors in the article): -------------------------- A monumental swing and miss by Strategypage on this one . . . >>November 15, 2005: The U.S. Army?s cancellation of the XM8 (a replacement for the M16) reflects disenchantment with the 5.56mm round, more than anything else.<< Which, of course, explains why we cancelled XM8 (which could easily be rechambered for another cartridge/caliber combination) in favor of, um, not to state the obvious, a rifle firing 5.56mm ammunition . . . in fact, mostly in favor of a carbine firing 5.56mm ammunition from a shorter barrel. >>Moreover, the 5.56mm round is less effective in urban fighting, where you often want to shoot through doors and walls.<< No, you really do not "often" want to do so since blind fire means you are just p*ssing away bullets and runs entirely counter to our actual doctrine for doing CQB. You might want to shoot through automobile doors and windshields, but that is another matter. Whoever wrote this does not know what they are talking about. >>The 5.56mm round is not as effective at doing this as is the heavier 7.62mm bullet. And the troops have plenty of 7.62mm weapons available, in order to compare. There is the M240 medium machine-gun. While this 7.62mm weapon is usually mounted on vehicles, it is often taken off and used by infantry for street fighting. Lots of 1960s era 7.62mm M14 rifles have also been taken out of storage and distributed. While used mainly as sniper rifles, the snipers do other work on the battlefield as well, and the troops have been able to see that the heavier 7.62mm round does a better job of shooting through cinder block walls, and taking down bad guys with one shot. Too often, enemy troops require several 5.56mm bullets to put them out of action.<< And an M14 is about the size and length of a boat anchor, making it esteemably unsuitable for CQB use . . . >>In a situation like that, it makes more sense to carry a heavier round. The question is, which one? The army has been experimenting with a 6.8mm round, but now some are demanding that the full size 7.62mm round be brought back.<< Um, no, sorry, there are not, at least not anyone whose opinion means much and who has not been whimpering about this issue since 1965. At least that's what I see, assigned to a USASOC unit -- 95% of the guys I work with are perfectly happy with the SOMOD M4 and the other 5% like 6.8mm. *No one* I work with who is an actual shooter thinks that 7.62x51mm is the answer for any weapon except those intended for sniping and medium machineguns. >>There are M16 type weapons that use the full size 7.62mm round (and the lower powered AK-47 7.62mm round). The new SOCOM SCAR rifle can quickly be adapted to using all of the above by swapping out the barrel and receiver.<< Um, sorry, but no. SCAR-L is the bulk of the contract (something like 120,000 5.56mm SCAR-Ls, less than a quarter of that SCAR-H in 7.62x51mm) and to convert it to fire a round that exceed the overall length of 5.56x45mm (i.e. 7.62x51mm) you have to change out the upper *and* the lower receiver. Which is to say, you need an entirely new weapon, plus/minus the handgrip and shoulder stock. >>Could be that the army is going to wait and see what SOCOM decides to do.<< Or could simply be that the money for an unnecessary change of weapons was not available since we're spending billions each month fighting a war? >>The other big complaint about the M16 is it?s sensitivity to fine dust, as found in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. This stuff causes the rifle (and the light machine-gun version, the M243), to jam. Troops have to be cleaning these weapons constantly. Another problem with the M243 is that most of the ones in service are very old, and in need of a replacement (with new M243s, or a new weapon design.) The XM8 solved much of the ?dust sensitivity? problem, but part of the problem was the smaller round.<< I think the "M243" reference pretty clearly sums up the incompetence of the writer of this piece.

Quote Reply

PowerPointRanger Op-Ed 1/4/2006 10:17:42 PM

This letter has been circulating on the Internet for a while. There have been questions about its authenticity. However, the Washington Times has authenticated it and published it as an Op-Ed. Bear in mind, the letter is not a first-hand account, so it contains errors. The sentiments are clear though. link "Hello to all my fellow gunners, military buffs, veterans and interested guys. A couple of weekends ago I got to spend time with my son... [He] spent seven months at "Camp Blue Diamond" in Ramadi, a.k.a. "Fort Apache." He saw and did a lot. The following is what he told me about weapons, equipment, tactics and other miscellaneous information which may be of interest to you. Nothing is by any means classified. No politics here, just a Marine with a bird's eye view's opinions. ? The M-16 rifle: Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the sand over there, which is like talcum powder. The sand is everywhere. You feel filthy two minutes after a shower. The M-4 carbine version is more popular because it's lighter and shorter, but it also has jamming problems. Marines like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons lights on the picatinny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits cannot be reliably counted on to put the enemy down. Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate use. ? The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon) .223 cal: Big thumbs down. Drum-fed light machine gun. Universally considered a piece of s***. Chronic jamming problems, most of which require partial disassembly. That's fun in the middle of a firefight. ? The M9 Beretta 9mm: mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in a desert environment, but everyone hates the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns for self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm: Bad guys get hit multiple times but are still in the fight. ? Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well and is used frequently for clearing houses, to good effect. ? The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.308) cal belt-fed machine gun: Thumbs up. Developed to replace the old M-60 -- what a beautiful weapon that was -- it is accurate, reliable and the 7.62 round puts 'em down. Originally developed as a vehicle-mounted weapon, more and more are being dismounted and taken into the field by infantry. The 7.62 round chews up the structure over there. ? The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way, way up. "Ma deuce" is still worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate fight-stopper, puts their d**** in the dirt every time. The most coveted weapon in-theater. ? The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there. Everybody authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on one. With few exceptions, it can reliably be expected to put 'em down with a torso hit. The special-ops guys -- who are doing most of the pistol work -- use the HK military model and supposedly love it. The old government model .45s are being re-issued en masse. ? The M-14: Thumbs up. It is being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a modified version to special-ops guys. Modifications include lightweight Kevlar stocks and low-power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the sandy environment, and people love the 7.62 round. ? The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way up. Spectacular range and accuracy and hits like a freight train. Used frequently to take out vehicle suicide bombers -- we actually stop a lot of them -- and barricaded enemies. Definitely here to stay. ? The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in 308 but some in 300 win mag. Heavily modified Remington 700s. Great performance. Snipers have been using them heavily to great effect. Rumor has it that a Marine sniper on his third tour in Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hath's record for confirmed kills with over 100. ? The new body armor: Thumbs up. Relatively light at approximately six pounds and can reliably be expected to soak up small shrapnel and even stop an AK-47 round. The bad news: Hot as s*** to wear, almost unbearable in the summer heat, which averages over 120 degrees. Also, the enemy now goes for head shots whenever possible. All the bull**** about the "old" body armor making our guys vulnerable to improvised-explosive devices was a non-starter. The IED explosions are enormous and body armor doesn't make any difference at all in most cases. ? Night Vision and Infrared Equipment: Thumbs way up. Spectacular performance. Our guys see in the dark and own the night, period. Very little enemy action after evening prayers. More and more of the enemy are being whacked at night during movement by our hunter-killer teams. We've all seen the videos. ? Lights: Thumbs up. Most of the weapon-mounted and personal lights are Surefires, and the troops love 'em. Invaluable for night urban operations. [Name redacted] carried a $34 Surefire G2 on a neck lanyard and loved it. I can't help but notice that most of the good fighting weapons and ordnance are 50 or more years old. With all our technology, it's the World War II- and Vietnam-era weapons that everybody wants. The infantry fighting is frequent, up close and brutal. No quarter is given or shown. Bad guy weapons: ? Mostly AK47s. The entire country is an arsenal. Works better in the desert than the M16 and the .308 Russian round kills reliably. PKM belt-fed light machine guns are also common and effective. Luckily, the enemy mostly shoots like s***. Undisciplined "spray and pray"-type fire. However, precision weapons are more and more common, especially sniper rifles. Fun fact: Captured enemy have apparently marveled at the marksmanship of our guys and how hard they fight. They are apparently told in jihad school that the Americans rely solely on technology, and can be easily beaten in close quarters combat for their lack of toughness. Let's just say they know better now. ? The RPG: Probably the infantry weapon most feared by our guys. Simple, reliable and as common as dog****. The enemy responded to our up-armored Humvees by aiming at the windshields, often at point blank range. Still killing a lot of our guys. ? The improvised-explosive device: The biggest killer of all. Can be anything from old Soviet anti-armor mines to jerry-rigged artillery shells. A lot found in [name redacted]'s area were in abandoned cars. The enemy would take two or three 155mm artillery shells and wire them together. Most were detonated by cell phone, and the explosions are enormous. You're not safe in any vehicle, even an M1 tank. Driving is by far the most dangerous thing our guys do over there. Lately, they are much more sophisticated "shape charges" (Iranian) specifically designed to penetrate armor. Fact: Most of the ready-made IEDs are supplied by Iran, the country which is also providing terrorists, Hezbollah types, to train the insurgents in their use and tactics. That's why the attacks have been so deadly lately. Their concealment methods are ingenious, the latest being shape charges in Styrofoam containers spray-painted to look like the cinderblocks that litter all Iraqi roads. We find about 40 percent before they detonate. The bomb-disposal guys are unsung heroes of this war. ? Mortars and rockets: Very prevalent. The Soviet-era 122mm rockets, with a range of 18 kilometers, are becoming more prevalent. One of [name redacted]'s NCOs lost a leg to one. These weapons cause a lot of damage "inside the wire." [Name redacted]'s base was hit almost daily his entire time there by mortar and rocket fire, often at night to disrupt sleep patterns and cause fatigue (it worked). More of a psychological weapon than anything else. The enemy mortar teams would jump out of vehicles, fire a few rounds and then haul *** in a matter of seconds. Bad guy technology is simple yet effective. Most communication is by cell and satellite phones and also by email on laptops. They use handheld Global Positioning System units for navigation and "Google Earth" for overhead views of our positions. Their weapons are good, if not fancy, and prevalent. Their explosives and bomb technology is top of the line. Night vision is rare. They are very careless with their equipment, however, and the captured GPS units and laptops are intelligence treasure troves when captured. Who are the bad guys? Most of the carnage is caused by the Zarqawi al Qaeda group. They operate mostly in Anbar province -- Fallujah and Ramadi. These are mostly "foreigners," that is, non-Iraqi Sunni Arab jihadists from all over the Muslim world and Europe. Most enter Iraq through Syria -- with, of course, the knowledge and complicity of the Syrian government -- and then travel down the "rat line" which is the trail of towns along the Euphrates River that we've been hitting hard for the last few months. Some are virtually untrained young jihadists who end up as suicide bombers or are used in "sacrifice squads." Most, however, are hard-core terrorists from all the usual suspects -- al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. These are the guys running around murdering civilians en masse and cutting heads off. The Chechens, many of whom are Caucasian, are supposedly the most ruthless and the best fighters. In the Baghdad area and south, most of the insurgents are Iranian inspired and led Iraqi Shi'ites. The Iranian Shia have been very adept at infiltrating the Iraqi local government, police and army. Since the early 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war, they have had a massive spy and agitator network there. Most of the Saddam loyalists were killed, captured or gave up long ago. Bad guy tactics: When the enemy is engaged on an infantry level they get their a**** kicked every time. Brave, but stupid. Suicidal banzai-type charges were very common earlier in the war and still occur. They will literally sacrifice eight-to-10 man teams in suicide squads by sending them screaming and firing AKs and RPGs directly at our bases just to probe the defenses. They get mowed down like grass every time -- see the M2 and M240 above. [Name redacted]'s base was hit like this often. When engaged, the enemy has a tendency to flee to the same building, probably for what they think will be a glorious last stand. Instead, we call in air and that's the end of that, more often than not. These hole-ups are referred to as "Alpha Whiskey Romeos" ("Allah's Waiting Room"). We have the laser-guided ground-air thing down to a science. The fast movers, mostly Marine F-18s, are taking an ever-increasing toll on the enemy. When caught out in the open, the helicopter gunships and AC-130 Spectre gunships cut them to ribbons with cannon and rocket fire, especially at night. Interestingly, artillery is hardly used at all. Fun fact: The enemy death toll is supposedly between 45,000 and 50,000. That is why we're seeing fewer and fewer infantry attacks and more improvised-explosive devices, suicide bomber s***. The new strategy is simple: attrition. The insurgent tactic most frustrating is their use of civilian non-combatants as cover. They know we do all we can to avoid civilian casualties, so therefore schools, hospitals and especially mosques are locations where they meet, stage for attacks, cache weapons and ammo and flee to when engaged. They have absolutely no regard whatsoever for civilian casualties. They will terrorize locals and murder without hesitation anyone believed to be sympathetic to the Americans or the new Iraqi government. Kidnapping of family members, especially children, is common to influence people they are trying to influence but cannot otherwise reach, such as local government officials, clerics or tribal leaders, etc. The first thing our guys are told is, "don't get captured." They know that if captured they will be tortured and beheaded on the Internet. Zarqawi openly offers bounties for anyone who brings him a live American serviceman. This motivates the criminal element who otherwise don't give a s*** about the war. A lot of the beheading victims were actually kidnapped by common criminals and sold to Zarqawi. As such, for our guys, every fight is to the death. Surrender is not an option. The Iraqis are a mixed bag. Some fight well, others aren't worth a s***. Most do okay with American support. Finding leaders is hard, but they are getting better. It is widely viewed that Zarqawi's use of suicide bombers, en masse, against the civilian population was a serious tactical mistake. Many Iraqis were galvanized and the caliber of recruits in the Army and the police forces went up, along with their motivation. It also led to an exponential increase in good intelligence because the Iraqis are sick of the insurgent attacks against civilians. The Kurds are solidly pro-American and fearless fighters. According to [name redacted], morale among our guys is very high. They not only believe they are winning, but that they are winning decisively. They are stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they almost universally view as against them. The embedded reporters are despised and distrusted. They are inflicting casualties at a rate of 20-1 and then see s*** like "Are we losing in Iraq?" on television and the print media. For the most part, they are satisfied with their equipment, food and leadership. Bottom line, though, and they all say this: There are not enough guys there to drive the final stake through the heart of the insurgency, primarily because there aren't enough troops in-theater to shut down the borders with Iran and Syria. The Iranians and the Syrians just cannot stand the thought of Iraq being an American ally -- with, of course, permanent U.S. bases there. That's it, hope you found it interesting, I sure did."

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:M-16 vs. 7.62mm 1/4/2006 10:21:44 PM

To which I should add: >>"Contributing factors that led to the others being killed, dying from injuries or taken as prisoners of war were heavy vehicles that were unable to maneuver in the desert terrain and malfunctioning weapons, according to the report. The report states numerous times that M-16 rifles malfunctioned or jammed." << And? Given the command environment in Lynch's unit, I'm vaguely surprised they remembered to bring their weapons with them to the war at all. Tight machining tolerances are the price we pay for having a weapon that can actually hit targets and hold a tight group. They also mean you have to take care of your weapon. The twits in Lynch's unit did not, and learned a very painful lesson about how they should.

Quote Reply

PowerPointRanger Cleaning M-16's 1/4/2006 10:41:50 PM

As I understand it, Lynch's unit had been driving continuously for two days during a sand storm. How precisely does one clean an M-16 under such conditions? Perhaps they can ask the bad guys to wait to attack until after they've had a chance to clean their weapons. Seriously, combat rarely takes place under ideal conditions & soldiers often do not have the opportunities to do all the things that would otherwise be required of them (like cleaning an M-16 8 times a day). And even if you don't believe the letter listed in the Op-Ed, you can google numerous blogs from Iraq which say much the same thing.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:Op-Ed 1/4/2006 10:43:13 PM

>>This letter has been circulating on the Internet for a while. There have been questions about its authenticity. However, the Washington Times has authenticated it and published it as an Op-Ed. Bear in mind, the letter is not a first-hand account, so it contains errors. The sentiments are clear though. link I don't see any indication they authenticated it -- "anonymous" does not provide any credible claim of authenticity to something. It is actually a license to write whatever you want . . . as whoever cranked out this silliness did. The authors's comments on the M1911 and the M14 are no less suspect in the Washington Times than they are on the internet. A) "The M-14: Thumbs up. It is being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a modified version to special-ops guys." -- Because some random Marine will obviously be in the loop on what SOCOM assets are using. I know in my little neck of the USASOC world we like to have "open house night" where we invite Marines over and let them play with all the new toys, give them any new classified information we might have heard, and then have a big barbeque . . . B) "The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there. Everybody authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on one. With few exceptions, it can reliably be expected to put 'em down with a torso hit. The special-ops guys -- who are doing most of the pistol work -- use the HK military model and supposedly love it. The old government model .45s are being re-issued en masse." En masse? BS. Special ops guys using the HK -- rather suspect. One of my coworkers did a year on an ODA in Afghanistan and saw exactly one HK Mark 23 -- in the hands of a DevGru EOD guy. They're sufficiently rare that I'm calling BS on Joe Marine having ever seen more than one of two of them if a SEAL platoon cut in line in front of him in a chow hall. C) M243 SAW -- Name says it all. If that's not enough, "drum fed" light machinegun is inaccurate, and not the sort of mistake one would expect from a serving marine or a retired one, since any idiot who made it to the middle of basic training know the meaning of "belt fed" . . . D) M24 Sniper Rifle -- Strange, don't you think, that the Marine would be singing the praises of the Army's sniper rifle? The USMC's corresponding weapon system is the M40A1 and -A3. Not even a mention of it. Very strange that his "retired Marine father" would also f*** that one up, since it has been in service for 30 years. The SAW, well maybe daddy's just ignorant about life in there here modern times, but the M40 misidentified as as M24? BS.

Quote Reply

joe6pack RE:Cleaning M-16's 1/4/2006 11:28:23 PM

"Seriously, combat rarely takes place under ideal conditions & soldiers often do not have the opportunities to do all the things that would otherwise be required of them (like cleaning an M-16 8 times a day)." Which, is over stating matters significantly. If you can't find the couple minutes a day to keep in an M-16 in "working" condition, I'm not sure what to say. In any unit I was ever in, maintaining your weapon came before things like eating and sleeping.

Quote Reply

shek RE:M-16 vs. 7.62mm 1/5/2006 11:57:26 PM

The 507th Maintenance Company is not the sample population that you want to use to draw conclusions from. Having been stationed at Fort Bliss in the desert, they should have been very experienced in how to maintain there weapons. However, when you read the actual report, they had three separate weapon systems malfunction (M2, M16, M249) during their battle, to include a specific finding of weapons maintenance being the primary suspect in the malfunctions in this first group (they survived). The malfunctions and jams that are reported in the second group have no comment as to the origin. The report claims to make no lessons learned, and so it's possible that maintenance wasn't a factor; however, neither is there a finding that it was a weapon issue. Both cases are a lose-lose situation (either your blaming the KIA for their inability to fire back or your indicting yourself by giving faulty weapons). However, given the other reports below that don't mention systemic maintenance issues, I'm leaning towards maintenance issues since it's mentioned earlier in the report and not specifically ruled out for groups 2 and 3. link

At this point, King realized, for the first time, that the convoy was off ROUTE BLUE. CPT King stopped the convoy and set up security. His GPS indicated that the main convoy route lay due west. There appeared to be no hard surface roads leading west from his location. After conferring with 1SG Dowdy, CPT King decided to retrace their route back through An Nasiriyah to find ROUTE BLUE/Highway 8. Realizing that he was off the convoy route, he instructed his Soldiers to ?lock and load? their weapons and to be vigilant. -page 10

Why do you wait until contact to "lock and load"? The only thing I can come up with is they didn't think they'd make contact and treated their weapons as such.

These malfunctions may have resulted from inadequate individual maintenance in a desert environment. -page 12

Corporal Luten, in the tractor-trailer driven by PFC Dubois, attempted to return fire with the 507th?s only .50 cal. machinegun, but the weapon failed. -page 13

SPC Grubb returned fire with his M16 until wounded in both arms, despite reported jamming of his weapon, -page 13

SGT Riley attempted to secure 1SG Dowdy?s M16, since his own rifle had malfunctioned, but was unsuccessful. SGT Riley then directed SPC Johnson and SPC Hernandez to take cover. Riley also attempted to fire Johnson?s and Hernandez?s M16s, but both jammed. -page 14

In the HEMTT wrecker towing a 5-ton tractor-trailer, SPC Hudson attempted to fire his M249 SAW while driving, but it malfunctioned. -page 14
Here's a thumbs up report from the Army on the M4: link
M4: Soldiers were very satisfied with this weapon. It performed well in a demanding environment especially given the rail system and accompanying sensors and optics. As one Brigade Commander said ?The M4 with PEQ and PAC provided overmatch over our threat equipped with AK47s and RPGs.? The general consensus is that every rifleman wants the M4 vice the M16A2. The most significant negative comment was reference the M4?s range. In the desert, there were times were soldiers needed to assault a building that may be 500 + meters distant across open terrain. They did not feel the M4 provided effective fire at that range. The 82d Airborne soldiers wished they had deployed with M14?s at the squad level as the 101st did.
Here's a thumbs up from the USMC on 5.56mm and the possibility of having M4s - the M16A4 with ACOG got a thumbs up, but the M16 sans ACOG was disliked due to its more difficult handling in CQB situations. link
M16A4 with associated combat optic (ACOG 4x), the West Coast?s SAM Rifle ~ All interviewed were extremely pleased with the performance and felt it ?answered the mail? for the role of the Squad Advanced Marksman (SAM). All said the fixed 4-power ACOG sight that was included was the perfect solution. It gave them the ability to identify targets at distance, under poor conditions, and maintained ability to quickly acquire the target in the close in (MOUT/room clearing) environment. As above, many ?stacked? it with the AN/PVS-14 to get a true night capability. No Marines present in interviews knew of any situation where the shooter could shoot the gun to its full capability or outshoot it. Interviewees included STA platoon leadership and members who are school trained MOS 8541 Snipers. They saw no need for the accuracy and expense involved in the version being built for the ?East Coast? SAM Rifle by Precision Weapons Section (PWS), WTBN, Quantico. The standard M16A4 with issued optic more than satisfied their requirements. Distribution among battalions varied. One battalion received (6), one went to each of the three line companies and three to STA Platoon for the spotters. Other battalions received one per rifle squad. Regular M16A4?s, no optic, were sent over to theatre to replace M16A2?s. However, they arrived too late to be distributed and BZO?d prior to start of the war. These weapons remained in storage in Kuwait. M4 Carbine ~ Many Marines commented on desire for the shorter weapon vice the longer M16?s. They say that it would have definitely been better in the urban environment because of the confined spaces. Since most of the operators were operating from a vehicle platform, the smaller weapon would have helped tremendously for mounting and dismounting. There were numerous comments that the M16 is too long and cumbersome in the urban fight. Several Marines even opted to use the AK-47s that had been captured from Iraqi weapons caches. Others were trading the rifle for pistols to go into buildings to allow mobility in confined spaces. There has been a push to get M-4?s to crewmen of the mechanized vehicles, LAR in particular. The distribution needs to include LAR, AAV?s, Tanks, Motor Transportation, and any other units that may have a requirement. IWS has fielded some assets to LAR, but not all others. LAR still has mostly M16?s. The M-16?s are too cumbersome/long for crewmen to employ (get out of the cupola or out of a door/window) in a timely manner while under stress such as when receiving fire. M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) ~ The SAW?s are worn out and apparently beyond repair. They have far exceeded their service life. Many Marines are duct taping and zip tying the weapons together. Reconnaissance units were requesting parasaw, infantry units requesting collapsible buttstock. 5.56mm vs. 7.62 Lethality ~ 5.56mm ?definitely answered the mail? and ?as long as the shots were in the head or chest they went down? were typical quotes from several Marines; many who were previously very skeptical of 5.56mm ammunition. Most of the interviewed Marines who reported targets not going down and/or could still fight were referencing non-lethal shots to the extremities. There were reports of targets receiving shots in the vitals and not going down. These stories need not be described, but are of the rare superhuman occurrences that defy logic and caliber of round. Some Marines did ask about getting the heaver-grained 5.56mm rounds, up to 77 grain if possible.
As far as the email, a few things struck me. The email is written by a retired Marine, which is why I think there are some errors. So, it's already a second hand piece at best. Next, the source of information appears to be a lower ranking enlisted Marine, which given the right circumstances, actually makes it more credible, until it talks about a "birds eye view." For me, I read this as a Marine who's in a TOC or elsewhere, and when given that, it would mean that the email is a second hand story of second hand stories. An alternate reading of the email intro could just mean that the retired Marine 1SGT that wrote the email is claiming a birds' eye view, but it's not a birds' eye view, its a soda straw view through his son, so that doesn't make sense to me. In any event, I'd agree that the 5.56mm doesn't have penetration power of 7.62mm, but what is the tradeoff? More weight, fewer rounds, all to get the same caliber round that you have in your weapons platoon and still a smaller caliber than your M2s/SMAWs/TOW BBs can provide.

Quote Reply

kjetski RE:Shrek & Full Auto 2/2/2006 5:55:04 PM

Back to the topic at hand ? whether full automatic on the M16 family is needed. -snip- Shek is right. The M-16 went semi-auto because it was more accurate. Experience has taught our Marines and soldiers that this is a much better use of the weapon. It was not done with an idle thought and a whim.

Quote Reply

terminal RE:I beg to differ 3/19/2006 5:27:25 PM

Never had a problem with the M-4 which in theory I should've had more than with M-16s because of the shorter gas system( more unburned powder finishes burning in the actual action of the weapon). I've ran full basic loads through it with out cleaning, even did 2000 rounds once. Keep it lubed and change extractors and springs every now and again and it'll run like a champ. I like the weapon personally...........but I do like the HK 416 upper receiver concept

Quote Reply

seantheaussie Good riddance M-16 3/20/2006 1:47:25 AM

"""""""even did 2000 rounds once"""""" Hell of a battle or great fun on the range?

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:I beg to differ 3/20/2006 9:46:38 AM

>>Never had a problem with the M-4 which in theory I should've had more than with M-16s because of the shorter gas system( more unburned powder finishes burning in the actual action of the weapon).<< I've never noticed any difference in terms of stoppages, etc., with the M4 compared to the M16 or an SPR. With a suppressor fitted it gets real filthy real fast, though that's equally true with the SPR . . . I have seen some guys with ultra-short uppers (11.5" or even 10") that they've bought on their own who had lots of problems, though. The shorty-HK416s don't apparently have the same issues, thanks to the op-rod construction, from what guys who have then issued have told me.

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

	News As History - November 8, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us