Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Must Read: Ret. Gen: M16/M4 Killing Our Soldiers

Okay let's do this by the numbers.

1. Stoner originally designed the AR-10 for the 7.62 NATO round that the US forced on all NATO countries.

2. Stoner redesigned the AR-10 to the AR-15 when the military or I should say the Air Force decided on the 5.56 NATO round for the AR-10.

3. The M-16 was originally adopted by the Air Force for it's police and air commandos and other ground fighting forces as a replacement for the M-1 carbine.

4. The Army adopted the M-16 primarily because of our small allies who had trouble using the M-14 because of their small size and the M-14's large size.

5. The Army adopted the spray and pray method of rifle fire rather than accurate timed rifle fire and the M-16 was the perfect rifle for the spray and pray method.

6. When we were first issued the M-16 we were told that the little 55 grain bullet was going so fast that the bullet would blow the enemy to pieces. A hit in the arm and the arm was gone for example. I remember being told this as early as my high school science class.

7. Also that the M-16 would never need cleaning. To that end the first M-16's were issued without cleaning tools or oil.

8. The M-16 as designed by the military was a piece of junk and probably has remained a piece of junk.

9. As to the "smart" rifle the general is proposing, I would not want a "smart" rifle in ground combat and I sure as heck would not want to haul around a back pack full of batteries to keep the "smart" rifle working.

10. As a heavy infantryman, until something better comes along, I'll take the old fashion M-14 battle rifle with my 200 rounds of ammo and a good bayonet to all those fancy "smart" rifles that everyone if proposing. Oh ya, and a web full of grenades.

Sure did. I'm not too computer literate but I can copy and paste if you want to see it.

I'd be more concerned with ROE.

COOL!




Travis

I think you need to PM jorge's fat azz.

With the M-14 you were issued personally 200 rounds along with a good bayonet for close quarter fighting. The M-14 was a good rifle for bayonet fighting.

With the M-16 you were issued 300 rounds of ammo along with a good bayonet for close quarter fighting. The M-16 was NOT a good rifle for bayonet fighting. Also because of the M-16's full auto capabilities you used the ammo up twice as fast as you would do with the M-14. It's awfully hard to train the average ground pounder to fire in burst. Most will just fire all at once until their ammo is gone. To that end the Army incorporated a 3-round burst switch on the M-16 as that was easier than trying to train raw recruits to fire in a burst. I don't think more ammo was much of an advantage for most troops.

And let's not forget that the 5.56 ammo was originally developed with IMR4198 (or factory version) that did not foul the innards that much but when the military adopted it they went with 748 (or a very similar ball powder) that produced excessive powder fouling and plugged everything up.

I've always been amazed that a rifle that sh*ts where it eats is as successful as this one has been.

That's true. You have a rifle designed for one specific powder but the military uses what's available, go figure.

Just for the sake of conversation (sitting in cold ND, bored).

If I could pick, my rifle would resemble an M-14 but chambered in a 25 or 26 caliber. But then there is the 6.8.

+1. But I also don't think the M-14 is the answer. I believe the general has a valid point if the goal is to take advantage of new technology (versus cast-in-stone outdated milspecs) to produce an uber reliable rifle that punches above the 5.56 and still allows you to carry more ammo than the old 14.

^^^^100

Another point is, when fighting irregular (insurgent) troops, the lawyers have ruled expanding bullets are okay. So 5.56 bullets don't have to be the old 55 FMJ. Expanding bullets solve a lot of the lethality problems with the 5.56.

The 6.8 obviously does add more killing power. Has there been enough data collected, to determine if the difference is worth the extra weight/cost of ammo?

10-4!!!!




Travis

As long as they look cool and girls can qualify with them, they (or something even worse) will be around.

" Also because of the M-16's full auto capabilities you used the ammo up twice as fast as you would do with the M-14"

Well.... it's been 51 years since I was issued an M 14 to replace my M1, and I'm going strictly from memory, but this is what I recall:

The M14 would replace both the M1 and the BAR. The BAR man in a Marine Corp fire team carried an M14 that had the selector switched to full auto. The other three guys' rifles were switched to semi-auto.

The Assistant Bar man could actually carry more magazines for the M14 than for the BAR.

If this makes you feel like you're F O S......... good.

SOCOM is about 15-16yr ahead of you. It's called the SOPMOD kit. The 6.8 will/has sucked balls as an infantry rifle. Drops like a stone, low BC, bolts break. IE, it's the 5.56, except worse. Marginally better terminal ballistics. Reliable mags are a BIG issue.

TAK hath returned!




Travis

Naw man, its Freddy K.

The M-16/M-4 isn't perfect, but it is the longest lasting, most tested gun in US military history. If we'd stuck with the M-14 I will guarantee we would have filled a lot more body bags than we have.

What a nightmare