I'm a little suprised about this article...I carried an AR-15 when I was a police officer. Granted I never saw the conditions that the military are exposed to, I'd say my AR-15 was pretty reliable. However, I also have worked as a security officer in Iraq where I carried an AK-47...I don't think anyone will argue that the AK is a more reliable hostile conditions weapon. I don't want to get into the arguments about which firearm is superior...They each have different strengths and weaknesses. But in the context of this discussion, the AK handles dirt far better than the AR/M4,16 and its derrivatives. It is ridiculous that the U.S. cannot find a more dirt tolerant weapon than the M4.

They certainly tend to be a fair weather firearm from what I've heard from people who used them in less than ideal conditions. From what I've seen and read the HK 416 would be an ideal replacement since its essentially the same gun from the outside, just with revamped mechanics that up the reliability a good bit. Unfortunately the price tag associated with rearming the entire military is going to make a lot of bean counters cringe, however considering how much has probably been spent on the OICW development program I don't see where they should be too put off by simply purchasing a weapon thats already been developed and is made by a company known for quality.

9, 30 round magazines in 30 minutes, IMO no rifle can sustain for any amount of time exposed to this, The barrel overheats causing expansion causing gas release hence stoppages,
I thought in arid/desert conditions magazines where meant to be only 2/3 charged..

[edit on 11-10-2009 by foxhoundone]

The US military works on superiority through maximum firepower.

The M16'/M4 was not and will never be a squad automatic weapon.

Yet in firefight this is what the US military does.
9, 30 round magazines in 30 minutes some units go through 9 magazines in 15 minutes even with the 3 round burst limitation.

There are units that carry 30 magazines per man for a 2 day patrol plus 100+ rounds in strippers. and these are foot units.

The guys in hummers carry a lot more.

The Taliban knows how to get US units to expend ammo with the minimum of there people being hit.

They will hit a US unit from 400 to 500 meters (the maximum range of the M203 is About 400meters)and set there RPGs at 500 or At the maximum range of 920 meters, RPGs self explodes (4.5 seconds from firing) and that's how the weapon is sometime used as a form of "artillery", spraying shrapnel over military troops.

The US units respond with maximum fire power till they start having weapons problems or running short of ammo and then the Taliban ether moves in or increases there fire unless the US units calls in fire support or airpower.

The AK is no better or worse then the M16/M4 its just that its seldom used to fire at the rates that the US military units fire at.

Replace the M16/M4 no just increase the number of SAW in the squads.

In Vietnam the Navy seal teams were "heavy" on belt fed weapons the Stoner M63a and M60 with 4+ per squad.
This allowed them to over power the enemy and if out numbered to break contact by appearing to be a larger unit.

One big problem the military has now is they have banned the use of most cleaning solvent that were good for cleaning weapons.
One of the best i found in Vietnam for cleaning the M16 was a mix of alcohol and acetone this would dissolve any smokeless powder residue (by the way this is the only thing that really cleans the gas tube on the M16/M4)

M16's was made for the jungle conditions of Asia not designed for the desert climate of the middle east. The M4 is basically an upgraded version of the M16 with the M4 being much shorter being more suitable for close quarters combat and easier to fire from inside a Humvee. It takes a lot of work to properly maintain these weapons in the sandy conditions of desert climate. Overall I still think the M4 is very good weapon of choice by the military.

Originally posted by Smurfwicked
M16's was made for the jungle conditions of Asia not designed for the desert climate of the middle east.

The M-16 was a waste in the Nam, in that jungle environment. The best anyone could ever figure was that it was designed to be used in a sterile environment because the slightest hint of dirt will shut the action down.

Aside from the fact that the M-16 series should have a piston/rod setup to make it more reliable, you still have the same problem.

The .223 sucks.

The .308 kills.

The combat effectiveness of the .223 after only 200 meters is mixed.

The combat effectiveness of the .308 is great.

Pocking the countryside is not combat efficient.

Hitting enemy combatants is efficient.

How do they expect to win with these faulty/inificient guns that contributed to the defeat in Vietnam. what about the XM8 wasn't that slated to replace the m16 family , why didn't they , they felt much better.

I hear it's BIG GUNNY that messed up that deal.

And that's not the only thing the U.S Army needs to overhaul. Our whole strategy is in question. Do we even use strategy these days . When I hear a leader say endless war , I hear a leader who has no strategy , as you fight a war to WIN. And you plan your strategy around that goal. I see good tactics but no GRAND STRATEGY. Especially in Afghanistan.

LIKE A CHICKEN WITH NO HEAD.

If it's to win hearts and minds to reform the theocracy into a secular society you need another KEMAL ATATURK , an inside operative. Basically he wiped out one of islam's most fundamental bases , the Caliphate. It's like getting rid of the Papacy.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by De La Valletta]

replace with hk 416 upper recievers would significatly cut cost its csupposed to be compatible with m4 lower. or rearm the iraqis with m4 right them off and buy kn416 or 417

Originally posted by dooper
Aside from the fact that the M-16 series should have a piston/rod setup to make it more reliable, you still have the same problem.

The .223 sucks.

The .308 kills.

The combat effectiveness of the .223 after only 200 meters is mixed.

The combat effectiveness of the .308 is great.

Pocking the countryside is not combat efficient.

Hitting enemy combatants is efficient.

Your no longer correct Ive used the Mk 262 this 77 grain load will kill you with 1 shot up to 700 meters there currently being cycled through Afghanistan.This may be one of the reasons the m5 is overheating the other reason is people getting scared in a fire fight and just dumping rounds down range.Suppression fire is fine but m5s are not saws and were not meant nor should they be pushed to the point the barrel becomes whit hot like i read that was poor training.The m5 and m16 have better accuracy than an ak47 and if in the hands of a well trained squad will win every time.

I'm not old enough to remember the M14 family. I have, however, noticed that many are being dusted off and returned to active duty. This, I think, would be an indication that maybe, just maybe, the 7.62/.308 is a better choice.