Soldiers Hate the M4 and M16. The Pentagon Is Finally Doing Something about

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/soldiers-...115400188.html

U.S.
Soldiers Hate the M4 and M16. The Pentagon Is Finally Doing Something about It.
The National Interest Task and Purpose, Jeff Schogol,The National Interest Sun, Mar 4 5:54 AM CST


Task and Purpose, Jeff Schogol

Security, North America
So what will they do?
Soldiers Hate the M4 and M16. The Pentagon Is Finally Doing Something about It.

While small arms and other infantry equipment cost far less than the Defense Department’s modernization programs, they have not been a top Pentagon acquisition priority. For decades, expensive weapons programs like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier have eaten up a large part of the Pentagon’s budget, but Wilkie said the task force will now look at whether the Defense Department needs to spend more money on smaller arms.

For decades, troops have been complaining about the limitations of the M16 rifle and M4 carbine, both of which are hindered by the same flawed operating system that makes the weapons jam easily. But after years of ignoring small arms in favor of expensive aircraft and warships, the Pentagon is taking a long, hard look at how to give the Army 11 Bang Bangs and Marine grunts a better weapon.

Defense Secretary James Mattis has ordered the creation of a task force to make American small arms more lethal to give infantry soldiers and Marines an extra advantage in the close fight, Pentagon personnel chief Robert Wilkie said. It has been decades since the Pentagon last looked at the combat effectiveness of small units.

“We don’t want any more fair fights,” Wilkie told Task & Purpose on Wednesday. “We want to overmatch any adversary out there.”

Close combat, in which opposing troops are no more than 600 meters from each other, accounts for up to 90 percent of U.S. casualties, Wilkie said, and America’s adversaries have made advances in this type of fighting in recent years.

The Israelis had planned to destroy Hezbollah using airpower in 2006, but they found themselves in close combat with a conventionally trained force that lured Israeli tanks and infantry into kill zones.

“The bottom line for us is we don’t want that to happen,” Wilkie said.

To ensure that U.S. troops can annihilate any enemy in the close fight, the new task force will look at how to update troops’ training and equipment based on lessons learned from special operations forces, he said. One aspect of the review is whether infantry soldiers and Marines need a new rifle, he said.

When asked if the Task Force’s work could result in the Army and Marine Corps fielding a new rifle, Wilkie said: “It could. We just haven’t gotten to that point yet.

But Wilkie stressed that the task force’s focus is to make sure that infantry troops have the training to be dominant in the close fight, adding that discussions about how soldiers and Marines are equipped “will flow from that.”

Mattis has said that he wants U.S. troops to experience 25 simulated battles before they get their first actual combat experience, Wilkie said. To accomplish that, the task force will look at expanding the use of simulators that are currently in the works at Fort Benning, Georgia, and Camp Pendleton, California, he said.

Over the last 70 years, small infantry units have done most of the fighting and dying in America’s wars, but a Pentagon Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation review recently determined that infantry troops get less than 1 percent of the Defense Department’s resources for training and equipment, said retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, who was an advisor to the CAPE review.

Meanwhile, any U.S. casualties can have strategic implications, Scales told Task & Purpose on Feb. 23. For example, the deaths of four soldiers in Niger in October 2017 has led the U.S. military to rethink its entire posture in Africa, he said.

“We’re very, very sensitive to casualties,” Scales said. “So, it make sense to me that the nation should do more to keep alive who are most likely to die.”

While small arms and other infantry equipment cost far less than the Defense Department’s modernization programs, they have not been a top Pentagon acquisition priority.

For decades, expensive weapons programs like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier have eaten up a large part of the Pentagon’s budget, but Wilkie said the task force will now look at whether the Defense Department needs to spend more money on small arms.

“The focus for this secretary will be on the point of the spear where the most of the casualties occur,” Wilkie said. “We are going to determine whether or not we have devoted sufficient resources to that fight. My view is, yes, we will be spending more money on that.”

Jeff Schogol covers the Pentagon for Task & Purpose. He has covered the military for 12 years and embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq and Haiti. Prior to joining T&P, he covered the Marine Corps and Air Force at Military Times. Follow Jeff Schogol on Twitter @JeffSchogol.

This article originally appeared at Task & Purpose. Follow Task & Purpose on Twitter.

I was not aware that the M-16 WAS HATED.

AS FAR AS INFANTRY RIFLE GOES, MY VOTE GOES BACK TO THE M14 COMBAT RIFLE.
WHICH HAS BOTH THE STOPPING POWER AND THE RANGE AS WELL AS THE DURABILITY AND DOES NOT JAM EASILY..
The M4 HAS NEVER IMPRESSED ME AS BEING SOME GREAT , MASSIVE IMPROVEMENT...-TYR

[CSM]

I am with you Tyr. I liked the M14.

[Gunny]

I had no problem with the M-16. I preferred the M-14 but millennials would wet their diapers trying to hump it being mostly real wood and all. Probably hurt their dainty little shoulders to fire it too. They'd need special combat timeouts to their "safe spaces" to cry about their bruises.

The only people I ever heard bitch about the M-16 were usually yhr ones that didn't maintain it properly. That is excluding the original that was designed to fire lubricated ammo and the government made them change it fire dry ammo after they had bout loads of lubricated rounds. That resulted in chamber pressures so high the casing would swell and either jam or not eject properly.

Otherwise, the weapon worked just fine. That thing called a bore punch in the buttstock? It's there for a reason.

[CSM]

I had no problem with the M-16. I preferred the M-14 but millennials would wet their diapers trying to hump it being mostly real wood and all. Probably hurt their dainty little shoulders to fire it too. They'd need special combat timeouts to their "safe spaces" to cry about their bruises.

The only people I ever heard bitch about the M-16 were usually yhr ones that didn't maintain it properly. That is excluding the original that was designed to fire lubricated ammo and the government made them change it fire dry ammo after they had bout loads of lubricated rounds. That resulted in chamber pressures so high the casing would swell and either jam or not eject properly.

Otherwise, the weapon worked just fine. That thing called a bore punch in the buttstock? It's there for a reason.

M16 was ok. I liked the long range capability of the M14. Of course, my eyes were a lot younger then.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I am with you Tyr. I liked the M14.

Do you think given the current small arms of other military infantries in the world, that we could go back to using the M14 and still have superior weapon for our infantry?
Only thing that gives it competition in my opinion is the AK47,which in my book still rates behind the M14. --TYR

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I had no problem with the M-16. I preferred the M-14 but millennials would wet their diapers trying to hump it being mostly real wood and all. Probably hurt their dainty little shoulders to fire it too. They'd need special combat timeouts to their "safe spaces" to cry about their bruises.

The only people I ever heard bitch about the M-16 were usually yhr ones that didn't maintain it properly. That is excluding the original that was designed to fire lubricated ammo and the government made them change it fire dry ammo after they had bout loads of lubricated rounds. That resulted in chamber pressures so high the casing would swell and either jam or not eject properly.

Otherwise, the weapon worked just fine. That thing called a bore punch in the buttstock? It's there for a reason.

Yes, but do you rate it to be a superior infantry weapon over the M14?
What legit complaint was there in regards to the M14 BUT ITS HEAVIER WEIGHT?-Tyr

[CSM]

Yes, but do you rate it to be a superior infantry weapon over the M14?
What legit complaint was there in regards to the M14 BUT ITS HEAVIER WEIGHT?-Tyr

As I recall, when they were switching over, the argument was the ammo was lighter. That plus a lot of combat at the time was in jungles (supposedly) so the ranges were shorter. All of it seemed like a bunch of bull to me. Initially, the AR-15 had a lot of stupid ass problems. Most were "solved" when it became the M16. When they decided to take the M14 from us, I opted to carry the M79 instead of the "matel 16" .

[Gunny]

Yes, but do you rate it to be a superior infantry weapon over the M14?
What legit complaint was there in regards to the M14 BUT ITS HEAVIER WEIGHT?-Tyr

Depends on the application, as CSM mentioned. As an all around infantry weapon I would rate the m-16 higher than the 14 simply for weight and adaptability. If you can shoot (being the key qualifier here) you can nail targets at a good 700 meters with the 16. Farther than a human can see with a 14, but they DID use them for sniper rifles at one time. Snipers qualify at 1000m but regularly shoot at 1500.

In an urban environment, the M-16 would be my preference. I don't like the M-4 at all. Jack of all trades, master of none. You need something for close combat and there's not enough rifle there to buttstroke the enemy then skewer his ass with a bayonet. The M-16 will out shoot the AK-47. The AK's rep is reliability. You can drop it in the mud and it will still shoot. An M-16 maybe not so much. You can shoot an enemy armed with an AK with an M-16 before he is in range to shoot you. Standard issue AK is good for about 300m on point targets. We qualified at 500m with the 16.

So depending on application, all three weapons have strengths and weakness. For close combat, I'd rather have the M-14. You nail someone in the grape with that wooden stock they aren't getting up. The M-16 is next, then the AK. Again, I wouldn't want the M-4.

Door to door? I'd want the M-4. Then the 16. Then the AK. Then the M-14.

Long range? M-14. Then the 16, then the AK, the M-4 last.

I listed them that way so you can see which rifle comes in second EVERY time while the others may come in 1st once but also last once.

Reliability? Know your weapon. You have a forward assist (the "A1" on the M-16 to seat your round if it does not properly seat on feeding. For a jam you pull the charging handle to the rear and clear the chamber. If your weapon is dirty, it will not cycle properly after so much fouling. You pop the lower receiver pin, drop the bolt and charging handle, punch the bore, wipe the bolt carrier and charging handle down and slap them back together. Should take about 90 sec to 2 minutes. By then, either you are dead, the firefight is over, or you can rejoin it if it is a sustained fight.

The REAL weapon is between your ears

[Balu]

Do you think given the current small arms of other military infantries in the world, that we could go back to using the M14 and still have superior weapon for our infantry?
Only thing that gives it competition in my opinion is the AK47,which in my book still rates behind the M14. --TYR

AK-47 Inventor: U.S. Troops in Iraq Prefer My Rifle to Theirs

Mikhail Kalashnikov says American soldiers find AK-47 much more reliable than the U.S. M-16 assault rifle.
Reuters Apr 17, 2006 12:00 AM

Mikhail Kalashnikov, designer of the world's most popular assault rifle, says that U.S. soldiers in Iraq are using his invention in preference to their own weapons, proving that his gun is still the best.
"Even after lying in a swamp you can pick up this rifle, aim it and shoot. That's the best job description there is for a gun. Real soldiers know that and understand it," the 86-year-old gunmaker told a weekend news conference in Moscow.
"In Vietnam, American soldiers threw away their M-16 rifles and used [Kalashnikov] AK-47s from dead Vietnamese soldiers, with bullets they captured. That was because the climate is different to America, where M-16s may work properly," he said.

"Look what's happening now: every day on television we see that the Americans in Iraq have my machine guns and assault rifles in their armored vehicles. Even there American rifles don't work properly."

Some U.S. troops in Iraq have reportedly taken to using AK-47s in preference to the standard-issue M-16. The Cold War-era gun, renowned for its durability and easy handling, is plentiful in Iraq.
Kalashnikov designed his first weapon in 1947 and is still chief constructor at Izhmash arms factory in Izhevsk in the Urals mountains.

The factory's director Vladimir Grodetsky told the news conference that around a billion rifles had been produced around the world using parts of Kalashnikovs or based on the same design, only 10-12 percent of which were made in Russia.

https://www.haaretz.com/1.4901496

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I have a Maadi AK-47 and love it. Don't need an AR. If I did buy an AR it would be chambered in .308.

Personally, I like the M1 Garand, but I realize it's a huge, heavy rifle, but that 30.06 round would really reach out and touch someone. I wish I had one.

And noticeably absent at the last gun show I went to was an AK-47 for sale. Lots of AR-15's, no AK-47s. I wouldn't sell mine, period. I've made some cosmetic changes to it and it's a peach. When I was out in MT last summer my BIL and niece's husband both had their fully customized AR's with scopes and the whole nine yards. My BIL had these little bright, candy apple green gel blobs that you just throw out and shoot at. We placed a few of those at 100 yards and took turns shooting at them, and believe it or not, with the iron sights on my AK I could hit those balls virtually as well as both the other guys with the fancy AR's, and, my BIL also had a velocity gauge, one of those deals you set up and shoot through the two hoops, and my AK with Russian Tul Ammo was almost as fast as either of the AR's. But if we were to throw our guns down in the dirt and stomp on them, I wouldn't guarantee the AR's would fire, but my AK would.

[Gunny]

If Baghdad Balu wasn't such a wuss, he could have read the part where his rifle with an effective range of 350m gets his ass shot dead by my M-16A2 at 500m before he can even get in firing range.

The AK-47 is a direct rip off of the German Sturmgewehr 44. kalishnikov took someone else's design and cleaned it up. It's popularity stems mostly for its cost, any idiot can use one, reliability in harsh conditions, and a seller not too particular about who he's selling weapons to. Kind of like that sub that got sold a few years back.

If I want the accuracy of throwing rocks, I'll cut to the chase and get a case of grenades.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

If Baghdad Balu wasn't such a wuss, he could have read the part where his rifle with an effective range of 350m gets his ass shot dead by my M-16A2 at 500m before he can even get in firing range.

The AK-47 is a direct rip off of the German Sturmgewehr 44. kalishnikov took someone else's design and cleaned it up. It's popularity stems mostly for its cost, any idiot can use one, reliability in harsh conditions, and a seller not too particular about who he's selling weapons to. Kind of like that sub that got sold a few years back.

If I want the accuracy of throwing rocks, I'll cut to the chase and get a case of grenades.

Haven't had any accuracy issues with my AK. Course mine is a Maadi, built by the Russians at their own plant in Egypt until the Egyptians kicked them out.

And if I'm going to shoot 500m, I wouldn't use an AK or an AR, I'd use a good bolt action 7mm with a Nikon scope. The AK is a lead spewer, it's reliable and gets the job done quite well I'd say, from personal experience, and I'm not an idiot...

[High_Plains_Drifter]

But just for the record, BOTH rifles are good.

I'd buy an AR just as readily as I bought the AK, but there's no sense in having both that I can see for myself.

If I DIDN'T own the AK, I probably would buy an AR because parts and accessories are everywhere, but like I say, I'd find one in .308, which is actually an AR-10.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I might have to recant my "throw them both in the mud and the AK will still shoot" claim... this is an eye opener...

[Balu]

Haven't had any accuracy issues with my AK. Course mine is a Maadi, built by the Russians at their own plant in Egypt until the Egyptians kicked them out.

And if I'm going to shoot 500m, I wouldn't use an AK or an AR, I'd use a good bolt action 7mm with a Nikon scope. The AK is a lead spewer, it's reliable and gets the job done quite well I'd say, from personal experience, and I'm not an idiot...

Russia and the USSR never had own weapons factories in Egypt. The production of AK clones was deployed in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Europe and the USA, both under the license of Izhmash and without it. According to very approximate calculations, there are 70 to 105 million copies of various modifications of Kalashnikov assault rifles in the world. Manufactured under the license and the original is not the same thing. Just like Whiskey produced under license in Belarus and the original Whiskey produced in Scotland. As to quality and reliability the worst are those which were manufactured in the Middle East and China.