NYT series on the M16

[Willie D]

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/...m-16-rifle/?hp

November 2, 2009, 9:29 am How Reliable Is the M-16 Rifle?
By C.J. Chivers
First of two parts

Few issues are more personal to soldiers than the question of whether they can trust their rifles. And few rifles in history have generated more controversy over their reliability than the American M-16 assault rifle and its carbine version, the M-4.

In recent weeks, a fresh round of complaints about weapon malfunctions in Afghanistan, mentioned in an Army historian’s report that documented small-arms jamming during the fierce battle in Wanat last year, has rekindled the discussion. Are the M-16 and M-4 the best rifles available for American troops? Or are they fussy and punchless and less than ideal for war?

Don’t expect a clear answer any time soon. Expect several clear answers at once – many of them contradictory. This is because when talk turns to the M-16 and the M-4, it enters emotionally charged territory. The conversation is burdened by history, cluttered with conflicting anecdotes, and argued over by passionate camps.

This much is indisputable: Since the mid-1960s, when at Gen. William C. Westmoreland’s request an earlier version of the M-16 became the primary American rifle in Vietnam, the reputation of the M-16 family has been checkered.

This is in part because the rifle had a painfully flawed roll-out. Beginning intensely in 1966, soldiers and Marines complained of the weapon’s terrifying tendency to jam mid-fight. What’s more, the jamming was often one of the worst sorts: a phenomenon known as “failure to extract,” which meant that a spent cartridge case remained lodged in the chamber after a bullet flew out the muzzle.

The only sure way to dislodge the case was to push a metal rod down the muzzle and pop it out. The modern American assault rifle, in other words, often resembled a single-shot musket. One Army record, classified at the time but available in archives now, showed that 80 percent of 1,585 troops queried in 1967 had experienced a stoppage while firing. The Army, meanwhile, publicly insisted that the weapon was the best rifle available for fighting in Vietnam.

The problems were so extensive that in 1967 a Congressional subcommittee investigated, and issued a blistering rebuke to the Army for, among other things, failing to ensure the weapon and its ammunition worked well together, for failing to train troops on the new weapon, and for neglecting to issue enough cleaning equipment – including the cleaning rod essential for clearing jammed rifles.

A series of technical changes sharply reduced (but never eliminated) the incidence of problems. Intensive weapons-cleaning training helped, too. But the M-16 has struggled over the decades for universal and cheerful acceptance. Some soldiers and Marines have always loathed it, and its offspring, too.

To their critics, the M-16 and M-4 are ill-suited for Afghanistan and Iraq. Unlike the Kalashnikov rifles carried by insurgents, they are too sensitive to sand and fine dust, they say. They overheat quickly and in the worst battles are prone to fail.

Critics also complain about the weapons’ relative lethality. Their lightweight bullets lack knock-down power, they say, especially when fired by the M-4, because the reduced barrel length of the carbine results in a reduced muzzle velocity, which lessens the severity of many wounds.

A discussion about the mechanisms of wounding could be a full post. One day I’ll take that on. But any discussion about M-4 and M-16 lethality would be incomplete without mentioning an essential variable: bullet composition.

The most commonly used round today, the M855, has a steel penetrator core and was designed to pass through Soviet body armor; some soldiers complain that when it strikes a man wearing only a shirt it can travel through him like an ice pick. Unless it strikes bone squarely, they say, it tends not to dump adequate kinetic energy inside a victim.

Moreover, unlike the former round, the M193, the metal jacket of the M855’s bullet tends not to fragment. This reduces the wound channels and energy transfer into a victim, too.

First translation: the M855 is not the best cartridge for shooting lightly clad insurgents; it is a cartridge designed for a different war. Second translation: some complaints about M-4 and M-16 lethality are likely related to the ammunition, not the rifles.

If all of this seems complex, it’s only the background. Tomorrow we’ll discuss the performance data from surveys of veterans and from reliability tests, and share the Army’s position.

Do American troops deserve a better rifle-cartridge combination? If yes, how to define better? More lethal? Greater range? More reliable? What rifle and what cartridge combination would work best?

[kunsunoke]

It is worth noting that the story is from the New York Times. You have to wonder if it's true.

Full disclosure - I am myself a member of the AK-47 camp. Mikhail Kalashnikov's rifle has won more than a few wars, and never fails to go bang when necessary. It's a thing of beauty, and when SHTF you don't want to be within fifty yards of one.

Having said that, though, I think most of the problems that the Army encountered with the M16 were of the Army's and the DoD's own making. The latter is more to blame than the former, IMHO.

The Army of Vietnam got the rifle in its AR-15 form before the US Army did, and they were able to do pretty well with the thing despite the relentlessly shitty conditions in Southeast Asia. However, ARVN was using the synthetic propellant cartridges that designer Eugene Stoner had designed the rifle around.

Eugene Stoner was livid when the US Army brass made the decision to replace the synthetics with ball ammo. He knew what the implications would be, given the direct impingement design of the rifle. But when you're subject to the DoD director (a cheap bastard) and you have a company trying to sell you ball powder at low prices, the opinion of the expert doesn't matter.

This festering bunghole was the bigger problem. Secretary McNamara had absolutely no problem forcing the troops to use what was essentially an untested rifle in real-world battle conditions.

Once they (DoD; Pentagon, Colt) started listening to the expert, the FTE rates went down and the M16 became what it is today - a high-tech thoroughbred precision rifle designed with close tolerances. One that needs to be cleaned frequently.

[knight0334]

I think for once the NYT is reporting a viable point. ....and hell must be freezing over right now because I finally agree with them on a subject.

Dont get me wrong, the AR15/M16 is a fine weapon, and the .223Rem/5.56 is a fine cartridge.. But there are better weapons and cartridges out there for use in battle, and if the argument concludes there aren't any better presently - you cant tell me we couldn't come up with something in short order seeing how we've sent people to the moon 40 years ago with computers fractions less powerful than today's cellphones.

Hell, with the AR's design we could remedy 98% of the problems with a new upper.

[ReconLdr]

I agree there are other options. Every option has trade offs though.

1. If you simply swap uppers and change caliber, you have additional weight or carry less ammo issue. Plus the cost and delay of aquiring large quantities of the new caliber ammo only adds to the challenge.

2. If you choose a whole new weapon system, the cost of training every service person in the operation of that weapon cost more than the purchase of the weapon.

There certainly are more, these are just the big ones that come to mind.

All things being equal, I would support a change to the standard issue rifle. Just not right now. We have other issues that are IMHO more important. The M16/M4 family has served me well over the years. I have never had an issue with a little bit of preventive maintenance.

[CarolinaGuy]

It is worth noting that the story is from the New York Times. You have to wonder if it's true.

Full disclosure - I am myself a member of the AK-47 camp.

It sounds reasonable to me.

I am also of the AK camp, and my personal experience is that of thousands of rounds of both platforms...I've never had a snag with the AK, and did have a problem when my step-mom [I suspect] didn't pull the charging handle back-snap properly with my AR. Took me about 15 minutes to get the damn round out...

[weaver]

I have to chime in on this one. I will say I don't like the DI system. It would be better if the rifle/carbine were piston driven to keep the fouling out of the chamber. Other then that they are outstanding weapons when properly maintained. With the round thats another story. The round is a good round but what they are finding is that the M855 and the M856 (tracer) are going into their spin 8 inches after they hit the target. So this means that once the bullets pass through the other end of the target they start spinning/fragmenting. This is at close distances too, not 100+ meter distance. This is why the Mk 262 Mod 0 was designed.