M-16 Rifle May Be on Way Out of U.S. Army
1 hour, 55 minutes ago

By SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Writer

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).

Photo
AP Photo

Related Links
� M-16 Overview (fas.org)


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.

Not sure how to feel about this. The M-16x platform certainly doesn't have many on the fence in terms of how they feel about it. The replacement brings many questions to mind, one is it's design relative to the K.I.S.S principle. The grenade launcher seems to be able to do a lot of things, I'm just not yet clear on how fast it can do them. I guess only time will tell and for the sake of our Brothers and Sisters in Arms I hope it is every thing they need...and more.

Cheers,
XWind

FYI..

Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW)
Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW) will be a light weight weapon capable of firing kinetic energy projectiles and an air-bursting fragmentation munition. It will allow soldiers to effectively attack targets at greater ranges, and to attack targets in defilade. It combines leading edge technologies in miniaturized fuzing; integrated fire control; light weight, high strength materials; and munitions effects. OICW will increase the lethality and survivability of the individual soldier. It is the sole lethality component of the Dismounted Battle Lab's 21st Century Land Warrior (21 CLW) Top Level Demonstration.

The Objective Individual Combat Weapon Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) provides an enhanced capability for the 21st century infantryman, with the potential to selectively replace the M16 rifle, M203 grenade launcher, and M4 carbine. The fire control system (FCS), using a laser range finder, pinpoints the precise target range at which the HE round will burst and relays this information to the 20mm ammunition fuzing system. Fragments from the bursting munition will defeat PASGT armor. The sighting system provides full 24-hour capability by employing uncooled IR sensor technology for night vision.

Specific goals include demonstration of hit probability greater than 0.5 out to 500 meters and 0.3 to 0.5 out to 1,000 meters. Effectiveness against personnel and light armor targets, given a hit, will be greater than those of the M433 High Explosive Dual Purpose cartridge fired from the M203 Grenade Launcher and the M855 cartridge fired from the M16A2 rifle. Specific goals include a 0.5 probability of incapacitation to 300 meters (point target) and a 0.2 probability of incapacitation to 300 meters (defilade target) in FY99.

Program guidelines were derived from the Small Arms Master Plan (SAMP) and Joint Service Small Arms Master Plan (JSSAMP). OICW-ATD is managed by JSSAP and will provide superior firepower to the U.S. Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, Special Operations Command, Navy, and Coast Guard.
On 04 August 2000 Alliant Techsystems Integrated Defense Co., LLC, Hopkins, Minn., was awarded a $6,946,000 increment as part of a $95,426,483 cost-plus-award-fee contract for research and development to advance the state-of-the-art Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW), Program Definition and Risk Reduction (PD&RR). Work will be performed in Hopkins, Minn., and is expected to be completed in the third quarter of FY04. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. There was an announcement in the Commerce Business Daily on Nov. 5, 1999, and one bid was received.

Key Program Capabilities


500 percent increase in probability of incapacitation
New soldier capability to defeat targets in defilade
Effective range to 1,000 meters
Day/night fire control; wireless weapon interface
Substantial weight reduction
Ergonomic design

System Features
Lethality Capability: 20MM High Explosive (Air Bursting) projectiles and 5.56MM Kinetic Energy projectiles
Weapon Length: < 33 in
Weapon Weight: < 12 lbs
Rates of Fire: 20MM - 10 RPM, 5.56MM - equal to M16A2
Range: 20MM - 1,000 meters, 5.56MM equal to or better than M16A2.
Combination 5.56mm and 20mm HE
Single trigger control for both barrels
Ambidextrous weapon and switches
Simple red dot day/night sighting system
Laser adjustment for targets in buildings and in defilade
Unique recoil mitigation and tactical operational awareness

Technology Advancements

Weapon recoil mitigation
Fuzing miniaturization and accuracy
Warhead performance and packaging
Target acquisition and man in the loop
Laser ranging accuracy at extended ranges
Extensive composite use
OICW-ATD Program Schedule
Phase 1: Study complete 12/94.

Phase 2: System design and subsystem demonstration complete 2/96.

Phase 3: Prototype system demonstration in fall1997/Jan 98.

Phase 4/5: Hardware build/live-fire simulation begins 4/98.

Fielding of first unit equipped in 2005.

if it's true about the m 16 could there be a time when a guy could get through the CMP program like the m1 garand?

OICW has been shelved for the time being, because they can't get the weight below 18 lbs. Instead, they're proceeding with the two elements separately, as the XM8 (5.56mm gun to replace M4/16, a version of the German HK G36) and 25mm grenade launcher.

The XM8 has the same configuration as the M4/16, so will have exactly the same size/barrel length problems. One day the US Army might see the light and get a bullpup....

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

From a dinosaur...
The US military has been wandering around in the bushes, trying to find their way back to reality, ever since the dropping of the 30 caliber. They adapted a whore of a cartridge, the 5.56, with a rifle system, the M-16, that worked only under ideal conditions. There's billions of dollars down the pipe, many lives lost, because the generals could not admit the were wrong from the beginning.
The cartridge is wrong, the rifle is wrong, add the wrong training, with inadiquate training, you have a good excuse for a new personal weapons procurement program.
If the rifles are too long to used in the current crop of vehicles and the rifles have been around before the vehicles, did some not do some caparisons ..rifle/ Humvee..rifle/ Bradley.
Sounds like a good old fashioned cluster fuck.
Jim

I, for one, am on the fence about this. But I think Tony is wrong about the bullpup. Bullpups, for all the reasons I've brought up before, do not work, ergonomically speaking.

And I think the weapons-training is the answer to the rifle dimension problem. That's weapon-handling vs. weapon-shooting training.

And the XM8 comes standard as a carbine, so it wouldn't have the same problem as the M16. And, the US military system doesn't support the fantasy-cartridge 6.8mm. And "real world" engagement ranges make the lower velocity issues irrelevant.

I'm struggling with the lethality issues. I just saw a pic of a bad guy who was hit with one round of 5.56, which completely peeled his head open, and another who was hit with a burst from a SAW and was cut in half. Both were engaged at ranges in excess of 200m verified. On the other hand, I hear accounts of Somalia where the baddies soaked up the 5.56 and kept on going.

And, I also know Vietnam vets who have a string of 7.62x39mm holes across their belly, or one through the arm, or leg, and according to their accounts, they were amazed that they could get hit there and how little effect it had on them.

There is no way in hell that the government will ever make surplus M16s available to the civilian market.

Having visited with the DOD folks that are looking at new weapons, as I'm in the Coast Guard and we too are looking for new weapons, they aren't real close to any decision and you will see M16's and M4 around for a while.
The DOD is looking at the technology that is "right around the corner" before jumping in with both feet.
Frankly though, I'll take any M-16 variant over any AK variant anyday...the only exceptions might me the Valmet or Galil and I would want them in 5.56 MM vice 7.62x39. Actually shooting both over a 100-300-500 meter course will convince you too!

regards,
Graycg

Being of a mature age, (yea, that's it mature age), I've been reading , talking and shooting weapons for some time. No, Ive never been in combat, yet I've trained for it for almost twenty years.

When a young soldier in the Army during the early 1970's, the end of Vietnam, I knew many others who had been there, and in the Korean war also. I knew more than one who soaked up a hit or two from the 7.62x39 and managed to function until the fight was over. I knew several soldiers who had taken hits from the 7.62x54, which is as powerful as our 30.06 service cartridge, and finished their fight before getting medical aid.

There is the other side of the coin. Enemy soldiers who have supposedly taken multiple hits from a .30 carbine and kept coming. I wonder if anyone ever bothered to count the holes when they finally stopped? The .45 caliber Thompson's were legendary for "keeping them down," as were the 12 gage trench shotguns.

Personally, I'm a little tired of the whole 5.56 versus .30 caliber debate. While I've never been in combat, I have been shot, with a .22 long rifle in the upper left thigh. I didn't like it one bit. I can only imagime what a 5.56 would have felt like, but even at 300 meters or so, I'm sure it would have really hurt.

There have been accounts all throughout history of soldiers continuing the fight after being wounded, even when we were using spears, swords, and arrows. Swords were good as you could remove limbs, but I don't really want to get that close.
Hardly nothing works 100% of the time, except a direct hit from a mortar, howitizer, or a 40mm grenade at 50 meters. (Gotta let it arm first!) So, this debate, as far as I'm concerned, is the old "Ford, Chevy, Dodge" debate.

As for a new weapon? I've always thought the M-16 series was good enough, until I got to a job that required me to climb in and out of a Hummer several hundred times a day. I hated it after that, and wished we had something like the side folding AK or the AKSU. The M-4 is better, but not good enough. And mine is burst fire/semi auto. Where is my "full auto?"

I don't care about balistics because I can always call for "God" (being fire support) to sort them out if they are too far away. Hell, I'd even settle for an MP-5 for most the places I've been. I like that little FN thingie (I've read about it, just don't feel like looking for the article at the moment.) that is really compact, takes huge magazines, and clip on grenade launchers. The AUG is an excellent weapon also, but of the bull pups the FAMAS rules. Easy to switch from right to left, accurate, full length barrel. Anyway, it's time to find something better that doesn't weigh over 8 pounds. All that other crap is just that. You want a squad machine gun and a automatic grenade launcher? Good, you pack it, as well as the other 100 or so pounds we have to pack these days. Food, ammo, mines, launchers, socks, MOPP gear, etc, etc. All that stuff is designed by bozo's that never have to pack it. Just like the guys who designed your car. They never had to crawl in there and fix some broken widget that is almost impossible to even get too.

My two cents.

Eric

How far above the barrel is the sight system? I no nothing about the FN2000, and will rectify that immediately.

By the way, Tony, what is your military small arms experience? I'm just curious.

Okay, I checked out several sites on the FN F2000. I have one word for my main objection: Parallax. With any bull pup design you either have to squanch your face down so close to the stock that you can't pick up a sight picture, or you have to mount the sights a mile about the barrel, thus making the weapon a "one range wonder".

The farther sights are away from the barrel line, the less useful range you get out of it.

I cannot see where bullpup designs will ever overcome this, barring some new revolutionary sighting system. And/or systematic reorganization of the human body. Well, that should keep the vivisectionists busy for awhile, eh?

Oh, and you say it ejects to the front? That's good. The bad guys get a muzzle flash, AND a bright yellow cartridge to shoot at. But then, again, those aren't things that people who shoot from benches really consider when they are picking their weapons choices for their fantasy combat games.

The concept of a Bullpub rifle is a sound one and I believe is the ideal solution for the military.

It does seem strange if you are used to traditional rifles, ( I was in this situation) but training and familiarisation are the answer. Once you get troops who are issued these from BASIC training onwards, these issues will fade away.

The SA80 is far from perfect, so don't let this weapon sour the concept of bullpups. The main drawback with the concept at present is that you can't eaily switch shoulder to shoot around cover due to the location of the ejection port on one side or the other....This could be solved by caseless ammo or a bottom ejection port as on the Bren....

Regards

Pete

[ 11-24-2003, 18:55: Message edited by: Pete E ]

Tony-

Not sure I like the idea of vertical dispersion being a good thing, except with automatic weapons on a T&E mechanism.

We aren't talking about one works and the other doesn't, here, we're talking about a matter of degrees. The conventional rifle configuration is just quicker and fits the body better, imho. And there is a level of firearms proficiency that you have to get to, until you really realize where that is.

While most people on this list are probably pretty good shooters, I doubt very much that a small minority of people even here have regularly practiced putting a bullet on the target under duress and in fairly uncomfortable positions, quickly and accurately.

I think the answer to making the bullpup practical will be to develop a better sighting system that will make firing position irrelevant. the current laser sights are getting close, and with fiberoptics, we may get there in the not too far future.

Replace the M-16 with the Daewoo K-1, or some nomenclature like that. The South Koreans use it to stand ready against the North. If it was not worth the effort, don't you think they'd go to something else, considering their precarious position?

Gee, me too!

Another interesting issue is how they handle magazine changes, etc.. The Stoner system is pretty darned good for handling controls. The magazine well, safety, bolt catch and magazine ejection button all feel "right". It is very simple to eject a mag, fish around for another, and help "guide" it into the well. The only awkard part is the controls on the bolt, and the original didn't have such an awkward, but made the carrying handle useless for additional sight mounting.

Perhaps the only better that I've personally handled is the Uzi system.

On the other hand, both the kalashnikov and the M14 system have got to be the worst. You have to fish around and find the heel of the mag, and even then, the magazine can hang up and fall out later, having never fed a round into the chamber.

For inside a urban assault vehicle [humvee,suburban,jeep..]why not a cut down Remington 1100 with double ought buck?Or a full auto Glock in .40, .357 sig or .45? For outside I say screw NATO and use hollow points in the m-16. I know I would not want to be shot with one.Hearing about our young folks getting whacked sitting in traffic is terrible.

There was an article in the last issue of Army Times where in a group of U.S. Army evaluators tested the HK 36 [is that the XM8?]. They could not say enough good about it. They fired five consecutive 100 round drum magazines through the rifle in less than five minutes. One Army evaluator said the M-16/M-4 could never do that without a jam. The HK has one huge advantage in that combustion gases are not vented into the bolt carrier group, as they are with the M-16/4. Hence, the HK stays alot cleaner and is supposed to jam considerably less often.

Jordan

The XM8 is an HK36 with different furniture. As far as 5.56 is concerned, I really doubt the army will adopt another round. I wouldn't object to a heavier round, but I don't think it's in the works any time soon.

In my estimation they should have adopted the AR/180 all along.

How in the hell did they fire 500 rounds in 5 minutes without frying the barrel?

Robinson arms has some interesting developments also.

Hauling around four or five loaded AK clips is a burden. Couldn't we spend some money and come up with a lighter, more powerful, and rugged ammunition for the infantry rifle. Really have to think out of the box on this, and have rugged throwaway magazines that hold about 100 rounds each and weigh no more than a loaded AK 30 round mag.

I have to agree with 120mm on this. The M16 will not be totally replaced until a viable alternative is found, I agree there seems to be a lot of them out there, but the US has stuck a lot of money into this rifle and the various attachments for it. The issue is if the M203, current M7 bayonet, PEQ-2, and all the other "standard" accessories fit on any other rifle out there? Imagine the costs involved just to provide new mounting hardware for the current crop of accessories.

Secondly is the issue of ammunition. Reports from OEF weren't too keen on the 5.56 round, especially out of the M4, there are some issues at ranges beyond 300m with the current round fired from the M4. But reports from OIF weren't bad at all, and the M4 was prefered there due to it's shorter length. Seems the average fight in Iraq was less than 200m for direct fire infantry weapons and the M4 doesn't give up too much at that range. Replacing the current 5.56 with a 6 or 6.8mm wouldn't be too bad, but it most likely would be based off the 5.56 cartridge, thus limiting powder capacity. Would such a round truly be better from an M16/M4/SAW platform? We aren't about to just scrap a few million magazines and since the design of the aforementioned weapons allows uppers/barrels to be changed this would be the least expensive option.

Lastly is the jamming issue. I fully believe the majority of this is due to poor training or over training. In 1991 we knew CLP was shit in the desert and used it only to clean the weapon, it was then wiped completely dry and we had no failures in our company. A friend who recently returned from Iraq said they did the same and loosly wrapped a cravat around the receiver for convoy ops. Sometimes the simple fixes work best.

Bob

Since I didnt read the whole post I will just say some stuff.Eric,you asked why your M4 is burst/semi.Only M4A1 rifles have full auto.You probably already knew that though.And this exact thing is going on at ar15.com.I personally dont like the XM8.Yeah,I have NO experiance but the lack of back up irons might be a bad decision.Especially when the sight(red dot)needs a battery change once and a while.And what will happen to the the M16/M4A1?Will it go the way of the M14?Only SF will be able to use it,and only if they choose to?I just think the most versitle weapon system today shouldnt be replaced cause the army wants a new toy.Hope I didnt just start a flame...
Thanks,Tyler Gorski.

[ 11-27-2003, 04:21: Message edited by: Jay Gorski ]

The 6 x 45 is a superior round when compared to the 5.56 x 45. The bigger bore allows for higher velocities in equal weight bullets. But who wants a 55 or 62 gr bullet? The 6 x 45 with a 90 gr SS-109 type penetrator would be a great solution for the interm. Harder hitting, and better expected killing/stopping power. It will work in all M-16s and SAWs with barrel change only. The mags and links will all still work. I do not know why the mil did not use the 6 x 45 to begin with. The future will almost certianly bring us something like the 6.8 x 43.

I understand that the 6.8x43 will fit into standard 5.56mm magazines; they take 25 instead of 30 rounds as the case is fatter. So adapting to this cartridge should involve no more expense than would a calibre variation based on the 5.56mm case.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

Thanks for the correction. I wouldn't want to go on being misinformed.

One other issue I didn't bring up in my previous post is recoil. Having shot many military arms I can attest to the fact that the 7.62x51 simply has too much recoil. I don't know what the M22 tripod weighs, but a M240G is about 24 or 25 pounds and few Machinegunners can keep a 6-round burst on a silhouette at 300m from the tripod, yet that can be done from a 15 pound SAW off the bipod at the same range.

I agree that there is room for improvement of the round; but logistics, replacement of current items or upgrades and controllability all have impact on what the military will decide. Personally I like the 6x45 as a much better option than either the 5.56x45 or 6.8x43 for the reasons stated by jnrifleworks as it requires only the replacement of barrels and rear sights on 2 weapon systems.

Bob

[ 11-27-2003, 20:26: Message edited by: Gunny Bob ]

The OICW will not be issued in place of the M16 as the standard issue service rifle. It was never intended to be.

The XM8 is the most likely replacement for the standard issue rifle with the OICW being used much like the M203 is today.

Here's our next service rifle folks, it's an uglier version of the G36:



Tim

I went to a manufacturers gun show in Washington, D.C. a few years back with my son who was a Marine Corp weapons instructor at Quantico and recall seeing a .14 cal. rifle there that would fire a gazillion rounds a minute. It was touted as the weapon of the future. It was an automatic of course. Anyone know anything about it? Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

The XM8 is sooo ugly. The United States would be the disgrace of the free world with that thing. At least the m16 looks kind of cool. That is just a bunch of green plastic with a blued barrel popping out the end.

NH_Hunter