m-16
- Thread starter x3m
- Start date
I'm not a Vietnam vet. But I have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. During my years of service I have seen multiple carbine trials looking for the next service rifle. So I'd like to add a few words from my era, specifically about weapons trials and aquisition.
Colt was able to get the M4 adopted without a carbine trial because "the M4 is just a modification to the M16" but then turn around and get a sole provider contract because "the M4 is a novel weapon system" in the patent courts. Colt had been able to have it both ways and their continued focus on .gov contracts has been well documented.
When you take a look at the number of carbines that have all gone through testing; FN SCAR, HK416, XM8, to name a few, we begin to see that the marginal increase in weight reduction does not justify transitioning a 3 million personnel military from the M4/M16 platform to something else. The bean counters will not be denied.
Second, as goes SOCOM the rest of the Military will follow. Want a heavier barrel? The "improved M4 will have the same SOCOM heavy barrel. Want quad rail hand guards? Now available for every M4. PMAGs? Now they have an NSN and can be ordered through normal supply channels (probably the number one reliability enhancer ever in my humble opinion). The reason why is that SOCOM has a better system in place for testing equipment, ie, if they like they buy it and issue it to guys going into harms way. When the guys who went into harms way come back they give a rundown on equipment performance and next thing you know it is SOCOM approved. Big Army is a lot slower than that, even with RFI programs.
During the Vietnam era, aquisition was done through "boards." So the "Infantry Board" was in charge of all the testing, evaluating, and eventual adoption of new weapon systems for the Infantry (and therefore all small arms for the Army). This setup is still here (there is a Test Platoon down at Fort Benning doing nothing but running potential gear through field problem after field problem) but it makes adopting anything a very long process. Rapid Fielding Initiative (RFI) speeds up the process, as well as the Operational Needs Statement (ONS) aquisition process. The problem is that just because you get something on ONS doesn't mean it is going to stick around. All those SAGE EBR M14's? Those are ONS because we don't have the numbers of M110's or M24's to issue to everyone who has an operational requirement for them.
Now SOCOM has been playing around with the 6.8 SPC for a couple years now, but Big Army has been in the process of "improving" the 5.56 with the M855A1 round (my initial impression has been "meh"). So I think that widespread adoption of 6.8 is not going to happen. There is too much infrastructure involved (and too many allies already feeling a budget crunch) to adopt a new round at this time. Adopting a new round will have to wait for peacetime (like the 5.56 being adopted in peacetime, the 7.62x51 adopted in peacetime, the 9mm replacing the 45 in peacetime).
So whether or not the M16/M4 is "the best" will always be open for debate. But definitely so far it has been "good enough" that nothing has been able to dethrown it so far. Now as far as politics influencing Big Army's stance on keeping the M16/M4, I don't have any evidence of that. I can't prove that corruption doesn't exist (no one can, you can't prove a negative) but given the number of Officers, NCO's, and Enlisted personnel who have been involved with carbine tests over the last two decades I really doubt that there is widespread political influence coming down to keep the M16/M4.
Jimro
@ jimro
I actually just said vietnam vets because I presumed that most of the teething problems with this rifle would have been during that time and that by now it would already be a pretty smooth platform
, and I wanted a military perspective , NO BS if you catch my drift , nobody can quite tell you how absolutely fine or absolutely sh.... a weapon is like a soldier can 
IMO a weapon cannot be judged on what it does on a shooting range , only on what it does on a battlefield.
just out of curiousity , if you happened to be in charge would you stick with colt ? or do you think the army would be better served by another company
I actually just said vietnam vets because I presumed that most of the teething problems with this rifle would have been during that time and that by now it would already be a pretty smooth platform
, and I wanted a military perspective , NO BS if you catch my drift , nobody can quite tell you how absolutely fine or absolutely sh.... a weapon is like a soldier can IMO a weapon cannot be judged on what it does on a shooting range , only on what it does on a battlefield.
just out of curiousity , if you happened to be in charge would you stick with colt ? or do you think the army would be better served by another company
Last edited:
VN
22 months in country. One malfunction. Case seperated in the chamber. Half in, half ejected. Early cleaning rods had a checkerd end instead of the swiveling "T" handle. Shoved the checkerd end into the chamber and pulled. Remander of the case came out. The case had broken at an angel.
Can't blame the weapon for that one.
Thats the only malfunction I had.
Still prefer the M-14, went throught basic with it.
2/503rd PIR, 173rd.
22 months in country. One malfunction. Case seperated in the chamber. Half in, half ejected. Early cleaning rods had a checkerd end instead of the swiveling "T" handle. Shoved the checkerd end into the chamber and pulled. Remander of the case came out. The case had broken at an angel.
Can't blame the weapon for that one.
Thats the only malfunction I had.
Still prefer the M-14, went throught basic with it.
2/503rd PIR, 173rd.
If I were in charge? Well, if I were in charge I would like to see a greater mix of weapons. The logistics trail be darned, in WWII we had 50 BMG, 30-06, 30 Carbine, 45 ACP, our allies had 303 Brit, 7.62x54r and 9x19. Now we have 50 BMG, 7.62x51, 5.56x45, and 9x19 and all our allies are the same.
For the vast majority of the military 5.56 is perfectly adequate. Where 5.56 falls short is in that "transition period" between 300 and 800 meters, the 77gr SMK in the Mk262 ammunition helps with lethality against a soft target, but it isn't a perfect solution.
So I would probably pick a weapon system that could fire a something like a7.62x45 Czech round necked down to 6.5mm to have ammo that weighed less than 7.62x51 but hit harder downrange than 5.56 and was capable of making 1k shots with service rifle ammunition. This would require a larger magazine well than a standard M4, so possibly a lightened version of an AR10 using lightweight polymer mags. Also the ability to swap barrels from a 16 inch "carbine" to a 22 inch "sharpshooter" barrel in the field would be nice. Whether it is direct impingement or gas piston or short recoil I don't really care as long as it is reliable and accurate. Propbably direct impingement as it is lighter. Weight matters when you have to hump everything up and down mountains.
However the vast majority of servicemen do not need to make a shot past 300, so I would keep the 5.56 in service filling the role of the old 30 carbine (but with much better ballistics and lethality).
Lastly there is the training issue. In the hands of a capable marksmen it isn't uncommon to use rack grade M4s with service grade ammo and make hits past 600 meters. It is cheaper to train on smaller bullets. Would I rather have a lot of people trained to hit reliably out to 300 meters or would I rather spend the same amount of money training fewer people to hit out to 800 meters?
To sum it up, the M4 is a lightweight, accurate system. I do not know if the current state of the industry could make a rifle just as light, just as accurate, but firing a 140gr 6.5mm bullet at 2700 fps with a barrel swap capability for anywhere near the relative cost of continuing to purchase M4s in 5.56.
Jimro
For the vast majority of the military 5.56 is perfectly adequate. Where 5.56 falls short is in that "transition period" between 300 and 800 meters, the 77gr SMK in the Mk262 ammunition helps with lethality against a soft target, but it isn't a perfect solution.
So I would probably pick a weapon system that could fire a something like a7.62x45 Czech round necked down to 6.5mm to have ammo that weighed less than 7.62x51 but hit harder downrange than 5.56 and was capable of making 1k shots with service rifle ammunition. This would require a larger magazine well than a standard M4, so possibly a lightened version of an AR10 using lightweight polymer mags. Also the ability to swap barrels from a 16 inch "carbine" to a 22 inch "sharpshooter" barrel in the field would be nice. Whether it is direct impingement or gas piston or short recoil I don't really care as long as it is reliable and accurate. Propbably direct impingement as it is lighter. Weight matters when you have to hump everything up and down mountains.
However the vast majority of servicemen do not need to make a shot past 300, so I would keep the 5.56 in service filling the role of the old 30 carbine (but with much better ballistics and lethality).
Lastly there is the training issue. In the hands of a capable marksmen it isn't uncommon to use rack grade M4s with service grade ammo and make hits past 600 meters. It is cheaper to train on smaller bullets. Would I rather have a lot of people trained to hit reliably out to 300 meters or would I rather spend the same amount of money training fewer people to hit out to 800 meters?
To sum it up, the M4 is a lightweight, accurate system. I do not know if the current state of the industry could make a rifle just as light, just as accurate, but firing a 140gr 6.5mm bullet at 2700 fps with a barrel swap capability for anywhere near the relative cost of continuing to purchase M4s in 5.56.
Jimro