ordc80

There have been debates against the M16 weapons system over 40 years. I personally have fired so many rounds, the barrel was turning color. Checked with a barrel gage later & 1 out of 4 M16A1 used warped. Never had any malfunctions. M16 not a bad rifle, personally it rates 6 out of possible 10.

US Military, like everything else has experienced great changes over the last 40 years. If we can develop, procure & produce technological marvels like B-2 bombers or USS Ronald Reagan, why not a new rifle for the 21st century? I was an Ordnance officer & witnessed extensive tests before any end item was to be purchased. Ordnance MUST carefully research existing systems, test, develop & field a dependable rifle. Governments owe our soldiers the best equiptment possible or citizens will lose faith with the Services. This process must be conducted beyond Governmental/Contractor internal politics. Example would be the pistol trials before adopting M1911 service pistol. Remember Springfield armory submitting the M1 rifle, one of the most advanced weapons of the late 1930's? The cooperation between Contractors & Ordnance must occur again or it will cost lives!

Thank you for allowing me to let off some steam. Hope everyone has a great day.

Albany Rifles

For starters I know the PEO Soldier, Mark Brown personally. He would NEVER do anything which he did not firmly believe was in the best interest of the Soldiers.

Second, the Army Acquisition Community does not determine requirements nor conduct testing. The combat developer (in this case, the Infantry School) determines the requirements and passes that to the materiel developer. The materiel developer then puts the requirments out there for industry to come up with solutions. Testing is conducted by Operation Test & Evaluation Command independent of the PMs.

The PMs procure the systems/equipment which industry can make to meet the needs which the combat developer approves of. Acquisition folks are responsible for cost, schedule and performance.

As for the M4...there are certainly some examples of where the weapon has not performed in the optimium manner for the environment...an a lot of them are apocryphal. The US Army has to procure weapons for world wide use. That is way the laws and regulations are written. And the procurement has to fit within the budget it is given.

And once again, I wonder what the level of training was in the units where the operational use was a problem. Were soldiers using the specified amount and type of lubrication which was called for in the environemnt? Where soldiers conducting the level of maintenance on their magazines which is called for?

Nothing works if not maintained properly...which is usually the underlying reason for most problems.

In each of the examples given, a soldier or a sergeant from one unit is quoted. What about the 3,467 other soldiers in that BCT? What was their opinion?

Does the US Army always procure the best? No...Gamma Goat, GOER or M60A2 anyone? But the idea that the failures are the result of corrupt military officials is absolutely false.

__________________
"Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves." TSGT Oddball, Tank Commander

ordc80

I would like to reference MARS TM-160 dated 15 Jan 1968. It was a report of the special subcommittee on the M-16 rifle program. By letter dated 3 May 1967, a special subcommittee on the M-16 rifle was established by Honorable L. Mendel Rivers, chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services.

Extensive hearings were conducted by the subcommitee between 15 May and 22 August 1967. Field investigations were conducted, along with visits to weapons manufacturing plants at Hartford, CT & M14 producers HRA & Olin-Mathieson. Here is the short version of this report.

27 Sept 1962 a report was submitted to the Secretary of Defense by the Office of the Comptroller, DOD. Essentally this report stated cost effectiveness comparison of the M14 be procurred by the Army to the AR-15 which was being procurred by the Air Force. Secretary of Defense directed a memorandum on 12 Oct 1962 to the Secretary of the Army stating he had evidence which appeared the M14 was inferior in firepower and combat effectiveness to the Soviet AK47. That the AR-15 was superior to the M14 in every respect of importance to military operations.

Secretary of the Army directed an impartial and objective evaluation of these three weapons on an Army wide basis. Well the tests were cheated up, rigged and some problems were omitted from the report, (like swollen stock during the rain test at Aberdeen Proving Ground.) Attitudes of personnel at USAIS & USAIB were favorable to the M14. I understand the Secretary of Defense, was to say the least, upset over this situation. He instructed the that the Secretary of the Army direct the Department of the Army IG investigate the Nov - Dec 1962 evaluation to determine their validity.

After much finger pointing, Secretary McNamara instructed: "so that begining with the fiscal year 1964 procurement only one rifle, rather than separate service versions, is produced and that is produced with minimum delay, modifications of the weapon & its ammunition are to be concurred in by all four services. Only such modification as are absolutely necessary should be made." Further Army memorandum of 5 Apr 1963 stated that consideration was given to sole-source procurement as expected to result in lower cost, earlier production, with fewer administrative, legal and employment problems. Much later, the subcommittee discovered possible conflict of interest & questioned the wisdom of Army Weapons Command, commanding General. He became associated with the company producing a rifle, contracted for by his immediate command, while he was on active duty. I hope this never did occur!

A production decision was made, but limited changes could not be made to the AR-15 rifle, unless approved by all services. Changes in propellent from IMR-4475 to WCC-846 ball powder caused weapon fouling. Quality assurance problems in 1964 affected early production. Uneven flow of weapons, resulting in rush and jamups which frequented towards the months end. It was not until Feb 1965 that Colt's quality assurance program was generally satisfactory. Add to the mix, poor troop training, with literature stating "this rifle will require the least maintenace of any type weapon within the Army arsenal today". "An occasional cleaning will keep the weapon functioning indefinitelly." Most of us remember how this rapid introduction of a new rifle, affected servicemen in Viet Nam. The problems were eventually worked out & the M16 served our armed services well for the last forty years. Training & maintance is imperative to keep the M16 working. I recall the beatup AK47s the 11th MI used for training in 1980 at Aberdeen Proving Ground. They "took a licking & kept on ticking". Hopefully, a new well thoughtout & effective rifle will appear for the next forty years.

I hope & pray we never forget the M16 introduction problems of the early 1960s. I am sure this would never occur again.

Shuttlecat

I think it's about time the Army gets a new rifle. Like the XM-8 for example.

cato

1)Unreliability of AR family weapons is DRAMATICALLY overstated. Remember when "everybody" just KNEW that .40cal. GLOCKS would KB the first time you put a round through the pipe? Or that a CZ-75s would crack its slide, using +P ammo? The barest kernal of fact gloriously embellished with internet and gun-rag say-so.

2)The reliability of the AK platform is DRAMATICALLY overstated. AKs jam like any other weapon. Don't believe me? Well, the North Hollywood shootout was ended because the last shooter's AK had a stovepipe that he was unable to clear. The fact remains that most folks who have a FTF with an AK don't live long enough to ***** to their Congressman (mullah, sheikh, shaman etc.)

3)The NATO 5.56 round is EXTREMELY lethal, and the M-43 (and the marginally improved M-65) round is rather wanting in that catagory. While the Green Tip will dance, and within about 150 yds, fragment, the SOVBLOC rds. usually fail to do either. You also get roughly a third more load out of the zippy 5.56.

4)The M-16 is well respected by those who use it to kill bad people. That goes for vets of Vietnam as well. Aside from the horror stories told (mainly by Marines, it seems), the weapon soldiered well during that war. The VC and NVA certainly held the "Black Rifle", and the terrible wounds it gave to their pajama wearing selves, in high regard.

5)There was absolutely graft and corruption in the hunt for the U.S.'s long arm for the 1960s. It however had nothing to do with the M-16. The foisting of a weapon that was outdated in 1945 on the soldier of the 1960s was a criminal act(or acts) perpetrated by the Springfield Armory and the Army's Bureau of Ordnance. Tests were rigged and data falsified. The Alaska trials that cemented the M-14 vs. the FAL (and AR-10) pitted an arctic optimised M-14 vs. stock competition bought the Army (and the poor Marines) an overweight and overpowered rifle that would have been obsolescent in 1942. Anybody wonder why the Services no longer design weapons in national armories, since about, oh, 1955?

Meh, I've said it before, but one more time for the road: the M-16 family works fine. The 5.56 NATO round works fine. And best of all, unlike the XM8, it DOSEN'T MELT under sustained fire. And they wanted to make a SAW outta that thing.

Cato

BenRoethig

HK416 is more likely. The transition would be far easier and cheaper.

__________________
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

JA Boomer

That is exactly what I was thinking. For those who say that the improvements offered by the H&K 416 over the M16/M4 aren't great enough to warrant the strains of replacement. The 416 is so similar that there are really no differences in the supply and logistics chain when compared to the current rifles right? So they could basically just be issued whenever a new batch of rifles is purchased.

Shuttlecat

You could be right about that. Not to mention it looks somewhat like the M-16, so the Army might look the other way with it being not Army made.

Spitzer

Why not just buy the right to mass produce G-36 in the states ?

HistoricalDavid

On a slight tangent, I'm interested in the 9" XM8; wouldn't that produce enormous muzzle flash and blast?

__________________
HD Ready?

gunnut

Too much money for too little gain.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

gunnut

Yes it would. In fact, some special forces like this attribute and use the extra muzzle blast in close quarters as a shock weapon.

My Mini-14 has an 18" barrel and no flash hider. It's rather unpleasant standing next to it being fired. I can only imagine a 14" or a 10" barrel on an M-4 derivative and the muzzle blast from the shortened barrel.

HistoricalDavid

A shock weapon indeed, possibly to its own users!

Officer of Engineers

Too late in the day. The purchases have already been made before the HK416 was ready.

__________________
Chimo

Spitzer

I admit I have no idea how expensive such a deal would be but AFAIK the G-36 is a whole lot more dependable than the M-16 & M4.