Article

2003-11-22 Home Front

M-16 Rifle May Be on Way Out of U.S. Army

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-11-22 7:13:54 PM|| || Front Page|| [11136 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 That .22 caliber round is also too wimpy for the mountain fighting in Afghanistan. I'd be interested to know how many M14s have been issued up there.

Anyway, maybe it's time to modify the grease gun for 9mm, or just let some contracts to have more manufactured in .45 acp. Trying to get a -16 through a top hatch is a pain in the ass. 9mm or .45 is fine for urban fighting.

Posted by commo 2003-11-22 7:23:51 PM|| 2003-11-22 7:23:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 In terms of bulk, I'm not so sure that the OICW is any better.

Posted by Rafael 2003-11-22 7:57:31 PM|| 2003-11-22 7:57:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 There's the XM8 Lightweight Assault Rifle, though if the guys there aren't using the 7.62x39 conversion kit (as of now just a rumor, but allegedly it uses an AK-47 type magazine well and feeds accordingly), the jihadis will die of laughter before they die of a 5.56x45mm out of this ...

Posted by Lu Baihu 2003-11-22 8:30:55 PM|| 2003-11-22 8:30:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 the jihadis will die of laughter before they die of a 5.56x45mm out of this ...

Oh, sh*t! We would have to make sure the troop's lipstick and high heels matched the stock, though.

Posted by commo 2003-11-22 8:35:21 PM|| 2003-11-22 8:35:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Of course, the AK-47 has a better knock down capability. It fires a fatter round at twice the weight. Also it isn't news that AK is better desert and jungle gun. We've known that since Vietnam.

I'm not sure going to a .45 or 9mm round is an answer. Those are effective rounds at close quarters (as long as your using a supersonic 115 or 124 grain 9mm), but they are next to worthless at medium and long range.

Also the OICW is hardly a smaller arm. Every photo I have seen looks more like a small artillery piece than an assault weapon.

Posted by Douglas De Bono 2003-11-22 9:38:38 PM|| [http://www.douglasdebono.com] 2003-11-22 9:38:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Yeah, the 9mm and .45 aren't for long-range work, but they're in an urban environment. Economy-wise (and don't doubt for a second it's not all about dollars) rolling out M3s makes sense. Issuing everyone MP5/10s is out of the question, the OICW is a boondoggle and by admission it's only meant for the frontline infantry troops. Maybe, just maybe, the Army is ready to admit that issuing EVERYONE the same weapon isn't the best idea. M3s are cheap, 9mm nato is plentiful, you're working 100m and in, what's the problem?

AKs are more reliable because tolerances are so loose, which makes them pretty inaccurate. And it's not like they're smaller/lighter than 16s.

And maybe all those surplus 16s will end up in the CMP! WOOT!

Posted by commo 2003-11-22 10:07:35 PM|| 2003-11-22 10:07:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Chamber for 7.62/.30cal instead of them spitwads. So it kicks a little, so what? At least what you soot stays down. The stubbys are a good idea too.

Posted by mojo 2003-11-22 10:17:02 PM|| 2003-11-22 10:17:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 H&K MP5's are good weapons once you're actually inside a building. But, If we're talking about fighting street to street they could convert a mini-14 (we're talking about hostilities at 100 yrds or less) & put a heavy ass round in there, something like a 7.62 or .30-30 that will punch through, & be real accurate up to 150 yrds. AK's are great under 100 yrds. M-16A2s are great for longer ranges, and extremely accurate, nice flat trajectory and the round is cruising. Their problem is you have to keep them twice as clean as the AK to get the same type of reliability.

As most of you all know the reason reason we went to 5.56 in the first place (besides the NATO insanity). The tumbling movement after the strike of the round was meant to maim as much as it was to kill. The thought being that terribly wounded enemy soldiers would slow up the rest of their troops as well as create a mental shock to them. (seeing your buddy screaming his ass off because the round that entered his hip just came out his left testicle) Essentially wounding and knocking enemy soldiers out of the fight vice straight out killing them was also meant to drain the enemy of his logistics. Sounds crazy I know, I wouldn't even bring it up if I hadn't been taught about it in my line of work. We should've known those 5.5.6 rounds were not going to punch through doors or really have the knock down power needed for quick urban clashes. I would've gone no less than a .243 myself, .270 better yet. If a round (.223) is too small for a deer by most state regs, then it's too small for a human in my book.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-11-22 10:48:43 PM|| 2003-11-22 10:48:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 because the round that entered his hip just came out his left testicle

ouch!

Anyway, not many cut down .30 cals around. Shortstock mini 14s like the Rugers, maybe? The gist of the article seemed to be that troops couldn't bring their 16 to bear from their humvee/bradley/m1 (seems they would have it sticking out the window ALREADY, but that's not PC). And also that the Bad GuysÂ© were close-in, i.e., no need for the 700m punch of the .308 win. If a tanker needs to put lead out there in volume, a .45 will make the spinchter pucker just fine, and will ruin your day out to about 2 blocks. Any further, they should be using the coax or Ma Duece.

I guess after Clinton, we should be pleased that the troops are even issued firing pins, much less ammo. I've also read that all they have is CMP to clean their weapons. Anyone's ever been to the NTC or 29 Palms knows that sh*t is nothing but dirt glue. Can't blame the 16 for jamming in those conditions, it's just piss poor leadership, AGAIN. Same old story.

Posted by commo 2003-11-22 11:50:07 PM|| 2003-11-22 11:50:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Rafael> The OICW's worse - it's top-heavy, and the option of bludgeoning people with the M16 buttstock just isn't there.

commo>
1) re the XM8 - :P [and note to mojo - if the conversion kit stuff's real, they will chamber for bigger-than-spitwads]

2) re tolerances - the "GI .45s" (the original Colt Government Model 1911 pistols) were pretty loose too, thus their reliability; more recently the things've been tightened up, but I hear they still work fine due to computer-aided precision in manufacturing, so here's hoping the XM8 is tight (enough for [match-grade?] accuracy) yet tolerant enough that it could vie with the AK on reliability ...

3) MP5/10s - Actually, didn't the FBI go back to 9mm MP5s? I know the government's hooked on .40 S&W in Glock or H&K USP Compact, but truthbetold, I prefer MP5 to your vaunted M3 - there's just so much versatility to it (such as scope, laser, sight mountings), the troops are more likely to be familiarized with it, especially the cops among the reservists, I just like the thing better ...

... and who among you here wouldn't prefer THIS!

Posted by Lu Baihu 2003-11-23 12:07:42 AM|| 2003-11-23 12:07:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 didn't the FBI go back to 9mm MP5s? I know the government's hooked on .40 S&W

Don't know what the feebs are using, but the 9mm was dropped like a warm, moist fece by just about anyone in the military that could do so. Still the 'standard' sidearm for line troops, but the operators promptly went back to .45 acp.

Far as tolerances, 'forgiving' is a fine characteristic in a handgun. I love my 1911 rep, I know it will never, ever fail me. Do you need it in a long gun? That's the big point of disagreement, ain't it? It's still nice to hit what you aim at out to 300m, which the M16 will do nicely.

And I say we can't issue MP5s/10s to everyone because of cost, not because I think they're inferior. Too expensive to issue, is the point. That's why only the 'special' units get 'em. I'm old school, so I prefer the .45 acp to the lesser 9mm (i can hear the howls already). That's why I humbly suggest reissuing the M3.

Posted by commo 2003-11-23 12:46:45 AM|| 2003-11-23 12:46:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Sorry to still be bringing this topic up (if that's impolite - can we talk about this by E-mail or messaging service?) but I know for a pretty fact that the government's more or less enamored with the .40 S&W; the MP5/10 is itself the invention-by-request of the FBI, but that round's just about dead because the recoil ended up resulting in the use of an underpowered "FBI Load" that the .40 S&W replicated off the bat, more or less obsoleting the 10mm Auto, and at last check that too killed it in the special forces, who seem to stick to the .45 and the 9mm (or at least the Navy SEALs do, in the Sig P226). I prefer the .45 ACP as a handgun round, but I'll take a 9mm in a submachine gun - high capacity is the point of one, in my opinion!

Posted by Lu Baihu 2003-11-23 12:45:29 PM|| 2003-11-23 12:45:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 You all trash 5.56mm but the high velocity, accuracy and tumbling affects are the pro's involved with it. It is also much lighter than 7.62mm and allows troops to carry more ammunition into the fight. The diameter of the round is only one factor of stopping power. It's all about weighing pros and cons. I'll trade the likelyhood of a one hit kill for the ability to carry more ammo and shoot accurately. OICW is way too far out to think about. The new XM-8 is the way to go. Versitile and more reliable (H&K makes it). Who cares if you think its ugly... My suggestion: Keep the 5.56mm in the XM-8 for line troops (except snipers who specialize in one shot kills... then 7.62mm or .50Cal) and go back to the .45 (H&K has higher capacity than 1911) for a sidearm.

Posted by Anonymous6373 2004-09-09 1:38:48 PM|| 2004-09-09 1:38:48 PM|| Front Page Top

13:38 Anonymous6373
12:45 Lu Baihu
07:52 Raptor
00:47 Jennie Taliaferro
00:46 commo
00:09 Alaska Paul
00:07 Lu Baihu
00:00 Alaska Paul
23:54 commo
23:50 commo
23:46 Frank G
23:45 Alaska Paul
23:37 Charles
23:22 Charles
23:08 Jarhead
23:02 Jarhead
22:53 Old Patriot
22:48 Jarhead
22:46 Bomb-a-rama
22:37 Bomb-a-rama
22:26 mojo
22:17 mojo
22:13 Bomb-a-rama
22:07 commo