suitability of M16 for Afghanistan

[SunTzuNephew]

There is always something better, The enemy doesn't have better firepower. The M16 will place more rounds more effectively than the the AK-47 at close or short range.

Keep in mind that our guys have equipment and weapons that make most engagements seem like murder. If a war is worth fighting, its worth fighting when your under or equally gunned also.

The M16 will place more rounds (that are less effective stoppers) more effectively - until it jams. AK's with decent ammo just keep shooting. I also find it telling that in all the testing the military has done on replacement weapons, they haven't tested an AK pattern at all: They have all been variants of the Stoner design, and the law of diminishing returns says that at best you get minor, incremental improvements. The Ordnance Branch can't be concerned about patent infringement, the AK pattern is more than 50 years old and the patent (such as it was) clearly wasn't enforced.

The AK is notorious for working under the worst conditions possible. Dust test? I'll readily put my AK's into any such test you can devise, and then fire them. Do that with my AR's? Not likely, unless someone agrees to buy replacements. And if built correctly, and using decent ammo, is sufficiently accurate for a combat rifle. In testing my AK I can easily achieve 2 MOA accuracy which is all a rack grade combat rifle is supposed to deliver, with good ammo.

Now, the ergonomics of the AK pattern are horrible, and the sights (and sight radius) leave much to be desired. Both can be fixed.

The reputation for inaccuracy that AK's get is because many of them, especially some of the Chinese parts guns that are built are built poorly, and generally surplus ammo sucks badly. I've weighed samples of surplus (spam can) comblock ammo and the spread is all over the place, either because the powder charges are substantially different (the easiest cause), the bullets are different weights, the cases are different sizes (which, since they're pretty much the same size on the outside means the empty space inside is different - which leads to wildly different pressures and trajectories. Minor variations are also caused in things like bullet and primer sealant. When I weighed the cases, I segregated steel and brass into different batches, both demonstrated wide variances.

The amazing thing is that AK's work as well as they do, and don't blow up too often considering how badly the ammo is loaded.

Also, the lethality of the US combat soldier is highly dependent on force multipliers like artillery, air interdiction bombing and close air support. The much more highly restrictive ROE's the troops are forced to operate under in Afghanistan now diminish those multipliers. Engagement ranges are much longer in A-stan than they are in Iraq (which has mostly been urban combat), and the relatively poor long-range performance of the M16 and especially M4 is at a disadvantage - which is more difficult to overcome without arty and air. Further, the poor road network makes getting armor (wheeled or tracked) and larger crew-served weapons on target more difficult.

 

[SunTzuNephew]

Interesting thread! Without much knowledge of any of the weaponry, with the exception of the AR15 from a civy standpoint, I have to ask the question of: if we didn't have constituents and government contracts governing what we give our troops, would we still be using the M16? Is there a better weapon out there that will give our troops to firepower they need to compete with an enemy who has better firepower?

If I was given permission to buy any weapon on the market and take it to war, I wouldn't choose the M16. I'd personally choose the AC-130, a B2, or a Trident Submarine with missiles, but thats me.

For something that can be carried more or less reasonably by an individual? I'd probably prefer something in the M16 pattern, firing the 6.5 Grendel round. A slight reduction in magazine capacity from the M16, much better long range performance than issue ammo, and even slightly better very long range (1000 meter) performance (accuracy, energy) than the 7.62 NATO round. I would NOT want the 6.8 SPC round, which gives away much for virtually no gain, compared to the 5.56. The 7.62x39 round is somewhat more powerful but is limited ballistically by bullet sizes and lengths, the 5.45x39 has all the same limitations of the M16 ammo, with the added benefit of bad quality control.

With the Grendel on an M16 pattern, all of the M16 accessories (rails, lights, sights, grenade launchers) will still fit and work. I think I'd want a piston operated system rather than DGI, and unless in CQB an 16-20" barrel would be just fine as well.

If I couldn't have the Grendel, a 7.62 NATO would be just fine: Any pattern MBR, the M14, FAL, or G3 would get the job done. So would an M60E4 or M240B.

 

[SunTzuNephew]

So that article points out that troops are being trained to expect a single engagement with a single enemy combatant to require three rounds, using the questionably suitable M855 penetrator round. That gives a soldier with a 20-round magazine less potential killing power than a WWII infantryman carrying an eight-round Garand - with which I doubt drill sergeants felt the need to train anyone to employ a multiple hit strategy.

Again, it seems a simple change to theater-suitable frangible ammunition would take care of most of the problem.

Fortunately 20 round mags are almost never seen in the military, at least lately. And a 30 round mag gives a theoretical 25% increase over WWII :wings:

I've seen lots (hundreds) of people shot, with everything from a pellet gun to a 12 gauge shotgun slug center of mass, and survive. There isn't much in the way of a magic bullet that will guarantee a knockdown: There's even a video on youtube of a Marine who was shot with an RPG, the round embedded in his chest but didn't detonate, and he survived. The Surgeon who cut it out of him didn't get a suitable enough award, imho.

However, I have noticed that bigger bullets are better. Faster bullets are better. The best is big, fast bullets: Failing that, bigger trumps faster.

My personal choices for defense? If I'm buying the guns and ammo (which I do) - I carry a .45ACP Glock (G21 or G30), and have a couple of PTR-91 paras, and Mossberg 590's ready to go. If I could have anything at all? A M16 platform gas piston operated 6.5 Grendel with mags that worked.

 

[CoastalDefender]

FN wants to sell the US Military 8 million SCARs.


My M4 never failed me overseas. Practice your Mozambique Drill, clean your effing weapons, and you will be fine.

 

[SunTzuNephew]

FN wants to sell the US Military 8 million SCARs.


My M4 never failed me overseas. Practice your Mozambique Drill, clean your effing weapons, and you will be fine.

Well, good advice but a couple of questions/issues:

Why carry a weapon that requires a triple-tap? There weren't too many of the axis power who required double or triple hits (although some did).

Did you ever fire the quantities and speed those guys did? Some of the more experienced troops are carrying 12 loaded 30-rd magazines and have cans of more loaded mags in the vehicles, because they NEED THEM. The M249 gunner went through an entire basic load (900 rnds) of ammo and then some, in less than 10 minutes, the riflemen did the same.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a weapon that wasn't quite so dependent on cleaning? I don't remember any big third-party development of special lubricating potions for any of the weapons in use before the M16.

My M4 and M9 never failed me in A-stan or Iraq either, but then I almost never had to shoot them (I did go outside the wire a couple of times). I did clean them at least daily, using equipment I purchased on my own.

Oh, and before FN wanted to sell SCARs they wanted to sell G36's, and before that they wanted to sell G3's...all the while selling MP5's and Mk21's... they are, after all, in the business of SELLING, not the business of defending the United States. "Guten Tag: We are from HundK, and we hate you!"

 

[CoastalDefender]

Well, good advice but a couple of questions/issues:

Why carry a weapon that requires a triple-tap? There weren't too many of the axis power who required double or triple hits (although some did).

Were you there? How on earth do you know that?

Did you ever fire the quantities and speed those guys did? Some of the more experienced troops are carrying 12 loaded 30-rd magazines and have cans of more loaded mags in the vehicles, because they NEED THEM. The M249 gunner went through an entire basic load (900 rnds) of ammo and then some, in less than 10 minutes, the riflemen did the same.

Yeah, actually had to use my weapon. So did every one around me. A lot.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a weapon that wasn't quite so dependent on cleaning?

Like a laser gun?

I don't remember any big third-party development of special lubricating potions for any of the weapons in use before the M16.

Because their tolerances were different. Funny thing about nostalgia, you never remember the bad parts. And the M1Garand/M14 had very little life spans compared to the development of the M16/M4.

My M4 and M9 never failed me in A-stan or Iraq either, but then I almost never had to shoot them (I did go outside the wire a couple of times). I did clean them at least daily, using equipment I purchased on my own.

So you were a fobbit?

Oh, and before FN wanted to sell SCARs they wanted to sell G36's, and before that they wanted to sell G3's...all the while selling MP5's and Mk21's... they are, after all, in the business of SELLING, not the business of defending the United States. "Guten Tag: We are from HundK, and we hate you!"

FN is from Belgium, and to my knowledge they never tried to sell anyone their competitor's product. So I'm not too certain why they would be trying to sell HK's G3, G36. Also, ****** is a Mk21?

 

[SunTzuNephew]

Were you there? How on earth do you know that?
Yeah, actually had to use my weapon. So did every one around me. A lot.

Like a laser gun?Because their tolerances were different. Funny thing about nostalgia, you never remember the bad parts. And the M1Garand/M14 had very little life spans compared to the development of the M16/M4.

So you were a fobbit?


FN is from Belgium, and to my knowledge they never tried to sell anyone their competitor's product. So I'm not too certain why they would be trying to sell HK's G3, G36. Also, ****** is a Mk21?

Right. A Fobbit who went outside the wire on medevacs - ground and air...I really didn't HAVE to, I am a physician. A Zoomie doc with a CMB. And when I came back in the wire, my work day just started.

Before that I was a pilot flying combat missions (that was in the first trip to the sandbox). Two Air Medals and a DFC. Now go eat your charms, while you answer my question about how FAST you had to go through ammo. The combat I was in on the ground (IED/Ambushes) was over pretty quickly and the combat troops around me didn't fire that much.

The reason this incident is news, is because it was uncommon. The M16 and especially the M4 platforms cannot fire at that high a rate because of barrel heating and warping.

As far as the effectiveness of the M1/M14 (actually the .30-06 and 7.62x51, 7.62x39, 5.56x45 and other rounds), I've made a near life-long study of wound ballistics and weapons effectiveness in combat and civilian shooting incidents. The Army has been documenting the effectiveness of their weapons in a scientific manner since the Spanish-American War, and it's all available for study. Likewise the FBI wound survey data. And you know what? The 5.56 isn't a particularly lethal round, nor does it do an especially good job of stopping an aggressor - in war or peace.

As far as the lifespan of the M16, I have a WWII manufactured Garand in my safe, that was actually issued to a 1st Inf Div infantryman in WWII....it still shoots, well. Think you can find an M16 (original, or even M16A1) issued to an 11B in 'Nam that still works? After firing 10,000 rounds through a Garand, you put a new barrel on it. After firing 10,000 rounds through an AK, you put another 10K through it. After 10K rounds through an M16? Nobody knows, it hasn't happened yet.

And you're right about FN. Before the SCAR they wanted to sell FAL's. Used by 90+ countries, and every country that took them to war (and won) dumped them IMMEDIATELY afterwards. Both of them. My bad.

Now, if you want to have a civil discussion about the actual merits of various weapons systems, fine. If you think you're the worlds greatest expert on the use of the M16 in combat, have that discussion with somebody who believes you: I suggest a mirror.

 

[CoastalDefender]

Okay, civil discussion. I'll hit point by point on the topic of the thread and you and I will agree to not have a pissing contest over nothing for all to see. Deal?

Right. A Fobbit who went outside the wire on medevacs - ground and air...I really didn't HAVE to, I am a physician. A Zoomie doc with a CMB. And when I came back in the wire, my work day just started.

Before that I was a pilot flying combat missions (that was in the first trip to the sandbox). Two Air Medals and a DFC. Now go eat your charms, while you answer my question about how FAST you had to go through ammo. The combat I was in on the ground (IED/Ambushes) was over pretty quickly and the combat troops around me didn't fire that much.

My only experience has been in Afghanistan, so bear that in mind when I answer.

How FAST did I run through ammo? Fast enough that I ran dry a few times. My weapon was never off Semi.

The reason this incident is news, is because it was uncommon. The M16 and especially the M4 platforms cannot fire at that high a rate because of barrel heating and warping.

I never had a single problem with mine getting so hot as to warp a barrel. I also don't think I ever went through more than 500rnds in a single instance.

As far as the effectiveness of the M1/M14 (actually the .30-06 and 7.62x51, 7.62x39, 5.56x45 and other rounds), I've made a near life-long study of wound ballistics and weapons effectiveness in combat and civilian shooting incidents. The Army has been documenting the effectiveness of their weapons in a scientific manner since the Spanish-American War, and it's all available for study. Likewise the FBI wound survey data. And you know what? The 5.56 isn't a particularly lethal round, nor does it do an especially good job of stopping an aggressor - in war or peace.

M193 is fine, the M855 is the problem. But now we are switching the discussion and saying the M16/4 is bad because of ammo. Fine, design the ammo better. Switch back to the 55gr M193.

As far as the lifespan of the M16, I have a WWII manufactured Garand in my safe, that was actually issued to a 1st Inf Div infantryman in WWII....it still shoots, well. Think you can find an M16 (original, or even M16A1) issued to an 11B in 'Nam that still works? After firing 10,000 rounds through a Garand, you put a new barrel on it. After firing 10,000 rounds through an AK, you put another 10K through it. After 10K rounds through an M16? Nobody knows, it hasn't happened yet.

Freaking laughable. I have over 15k rounds in my personal AR15. No problems. But then I clean it.

And you're right about FN. Before the SCAR they wanted to sell FAL's. Used by 90+ countries, and every country that took them to war (and won) dumped them IMMEDIATELY afterwards. Both of them. My bad.

What? That's ludicrous. The only reason anyone has ever dumped them is the same reason we dumped the M14 for the M16. More round count per soldier. If they dumped them for any other reason, I ask that you provide citation for me to read.

Now, if you want to have a civil discussion about the actual merits of various weapons systems, fine. If you think you're the worlds greatest expert on the use of the M16 in combat, have that discussion with somebody who believes you: I suggest a mirror.

Spoken about before I started replying.

My personal background is from a position that is a little more to the pointy end of the stick than yours. Do not misread that as a slam at you, not my intent. But we were at opposite ends of the spectrum out there. My job was to keep guys on the other side reasons to have guys like you. I speak from experience of exercising my pointy finger a lot. And I go from personal experience in this. I never had any problems with my weapons overseas.

 

[mjmcdowell]

M16 jamming since the Vietnam era......

Well... I do have some expertise on this matter, 1969/70 USARVN, 6/31 inf.,("Polar Bears") 9 th. ID, 11B 40, 9 mos. "humping the boonies". Early on there were problems encountered with the "little black rifle" those were pretty much solved early on in the war also. By the time my tour of duty started, IF you kept your rifle clean and your ammo/magazines clean, load 18 rds only per magazine, use up old ammo ( not really a problem) also and lubricate well during the wet season and sparingly during the dry/dusty season you could expect a very low failure rate (remember they are tools and not totally fail safe) My 16 was an older one which had already seen action before I was issued it and I had very, very few problems in the field with it. My tour was in the Delta down south and when wet, very wet, all rice paddies and canals, mud, when dry, very dusty. I guess you either love the little rifle or not, once the jamming problems were solved in its production it was great for this close in warfare. I loved mine it served me well, if not I might not be typing this now. I do not think that the problems had with the early issue rifles in vietnam exist today and our regular infantry troops are well armed with the 16 and all its variations in use, God bless all our troops, from an old horse. mjmcdowell

 

[skysix]

Failing that, bigger trumps faster.

Not sure I agree - Kinetic energy works on the SQUARE of the velocity (E=mv**2) so delivered impact force is much more affected my speed than weight.

On the other hand, the bigger the bullet (and softer to a point) the bigger the hole/damage...

I prefer the FAL but it is just that, a preference. But carrying 8x20 rounds plus the weapon/mag does reduce the amount of optics and other stuff/toys you can take before you are so heavy you waddle... Afghanistinian distances (is that a word?) make the 7.62 better but so does marksmanship training and fire discipline. One of the most common uses for the M16 platform is suppressive fire - to prevent the opposition from accurate return fire (although many seem to hold the AK above their heads and spray...)

So why not continue and expand the issue of the M1A/M14 with the 7.62 so that a squad has (saw for arguments sake) 6 of them and a pair of 5.56 SAW's ... bear in mind I come from a combat engineer not infantry background.

 

[Spikepretorius]

every country that took them to war (FN FAL) dumped them IMMEDIATELY afterwards.

Yea right. The FN has a proud history. It only lost favour when everybody started jumping on the 5.56 bandwagon.

Why carry a weapon that requires a triple-tap?

I carried a FN FAL 7.62 (Called R1 in these parts) on ops and we always double or triple tapped. Standard procedure to double tap regardless of what weapon you carry

clean your effing weapons, and you will be fine

Agreed. Also set up your weapon for yourself. Fine tune your gas recoil, and "blueprint" your working parts and magazines, etc. A lot of jamming can be avoided if you apply yourself.

I occasionally carried an AK but only if I needed to travel lighter for some reason, like carrying an M69 as well, for example. I never felt comfortable with it from a fire-power point of view. You can bury it for months in sand or mud and it will still cycle though, which is a bonus.

We had a large range of weapons to choose from (including american stuff) when on external ops but we mostly chose the FN. The general feeling was that the other offerings were not up to it. Tin foil and plastic.

or G3 would get the job done

A G3 has (had?) a plastic stock which breaks easily in the real world

My experience of the current situation in the Middle East is limited to TV viewing
However I notice a trend where the guys do a helluva lot of shooting when they don't see an enemy. (spray and pray). We were always taught to conserve our ammo till we actually see somebody to shoot at.
Carrying an ultra-light weapon with bucket loads of light-weight ammo has it's merits when using those "tactics". Perhaps the powers-that-be reckon it's an easier option than relying on selective shooting and ammo economy

2cents worth. ex 31 (Bushman) Battalion, SADF

 

[Harald Hansen]

A G3 has (had?) a plastic stock which breaks easily in the real world

Really? I've never seen one break during my service with the Norwegian Army and Home Guard, including under extremely cold conditions. Might be that the Norwegian variant (called AG-3) licence-produced here uses a different kind of plastic.

Now I'm issued a H&K HK416, which is a 5.56 mm M4 derivate, so I'm kind of following this discussion from the sideline.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

If you'd like to know the real story behind the AR platform - and every other American service rifle since colonial days - read Alexander Rose's excellent book, American Rifle, a Biography.

 

[Wyoming Shooter]

I have sent a fair number of rounds downrange with the AR platform and have coached many carbine classes that each involved tens of thousands of rounds.

A couple of points:

1. The AR, while not perfect, is an excellent tool.

2. The key to AR reliability is lubrication. A wet carbine is a happy carbine. The AR can go well over 10,000 rounds without cleaning - so long as it is well lubed.

3. While bigger is generally better, no centerfire rifle will reliably stop a determined adversary with peripheral hits. Good hits with the 5.56 round will stop the fight.

4. Buy a quality carbine - Colt, LMT, LaRue, BCM, Noveske, etc. There's a lot of junk out there. Friends don't let friends buy junk.

5. Get some quality training. Learn to run that gun! I recommend EAG, Gunsite, and Thunder Ranch.

Best regards from the Big Empty, ELN.

 

[tac]

some upgrades are avail for m4 ect platform but by far the best ive used so far is the gas system out and the new piston system in the new system definitly keeps the gun cleaner and so far on malfunctions....1200rounds and no i havent cleaned it yes,its dirty but its still goin and im actully not cleaning this gun bc i have the luxury of not going back to combat for a while so ive been buying and testing gear so far colt,bushmaster,rock river,lewis machine and tool are in my line up right now im playing with the stag arms model 8...i never had a prob with my m4 or any of my weapons on a deployment,but i clean them and as far as take down power or stopping ability.....i got a secert....AIM...end of story.distance well thats what my buddies for(sniper...lol)not me though too much damn math and clicks up down ect....i admit ive carried an ak and i liked it alot....but all that being said a weapon is only as good as the person using it.