Is It Time For The M-4 & M-16 Rifles Be Retired From Service?

If I had the option, I would take this with me. What can I say she's reliable and efficient. Little bit more punch than the 5.56 as well..

The m-16 has a place and purpose. It was built to be used in wooded or jungle areas. It was intended to be used against large numbers of troops and to wound primarily as that will remove other troops from battle to deal with and move the wounded. It was designed to use ammo that could be carried in large amounts. It was designed with a flat trajectory so that within 300 yards a straight shot at a man sized target would require no elevation adjustment.

This was the weapon that was designed to shoot at hundreds of thousands of communist soldiers when world war three came along.

Since 2000 it has been extensively used in the desert where it was not designed to be used. It does not carry a killing punch past 300 yards. It doesn't handle dry and gritty firing conditions well and it lacks punch for body armor.

It is still a fine weapon and can be used to great effect in most situations but desert warfare is suited for a longer range rifle with a larger round. It's just that simple.

It doesn't need to be replaced. That's what politicians do when they are going to get a big kickback from a big arms contract.

It simply needs to be replaced or augmented in troops who are deployed in areas with long distance shooting.

We don't need to reinvent the wheel every time a tool has a limitation. We simply need to use common sense when deploying troops and provide them with proper tools at the proper time.

reply to post by seagull


You'll never see a return of the M-14 or any other .308 based main battle rifle... I don't remember the year but there was a UN resolution making the .308 an unhunantarryen round...

Shoot someone in the arm with a 5.56 and you get a neat little hole... Shoot someone in the arm with that big .30 cal and the arms comes off...

this is why we switched to the M16 and now M4 and why there is a general UN ban on .308 ammo... sorry any new version of that old m14 war horse has to chamber a 5.56...

reply to post by DaddyBare

That's not possible.

The reason is because the light machineguns use the .308, the designated shooters use the .308, snipers use the .300 magnum and the .50 Barrett.

The older AK's use the 7.62 Short.

The only agreed upon international determination is full metal jacket, but even that isn't followed as we Americans still carry and use shotguns.

reply to post by DaddyBare


I've never heard that. Completely news to me... That begs the question why are SF's in Afghanistan dusting them off and using them in the field? At least I seem to recall reading that somewhere.

reply to post by dooper


From From Wikipedia:

Protocol I is a 1977 amendment protocol to the Geneva Conventions relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts. It reaffirms the international laws of the original Geneva Conventions of 1949, but adds clarifications and new provisions to accommodate developments in modern international warfare that have taken place since the Second World War.

As of 8 June 2007, it had been ratified by 168 countries[1], with the United States, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, and Iraq being notable exceptions. However, the United States, Iran, and Pakistan signed it on 12 December 1977 with the intention of ratifying it. According to an appeal by the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1997, a number of the articles contained in both protocols are recognized as rules of customary international law valid for all states, whether or not they have ratified them.[2]

Article 35 bans weapons that "cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering," as well as means of warfare that "cause widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment."

The UN resolution I mention names the .308 NATO round as "cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering,"...

there are workarounds like limited use by sniper's, special ops etc... but by law it cannot be the main cartage for any standing army under the Geneva Protocol to Hague Convention... I wasn't making this up.... It use to be my job to know this drivel
read about it here

reply to post by DaddyBare


I'm not doubting you. I'd just never heard that before. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

reply to post by DaddyBare

AH!

But it hasn't been ratified has it?

I have a feeling that US forces will use whatever they deem appropriate.

I wasn't supposed to use my .12-guage with 00Buck, but in fact, I didn't sign the Geneva Conventions, and the UN wasn't pulling patrols with me.

Very good, pointing that out.

This just validates further our ongoing political/military stupidity.

reply to post by dooper


True we never did ratify it but the US is terrified to violate the Hague Convention....

Now this is all academic, okay.... My personal take is I'd love to see a return of the 7.62 NATO... this is a slightly less powerful round than the civilian .308 The .30 Cal has far superior ballistics to the little .22 but I don't get to make that choice...

reply to post by seagull


I never said it made sense... you have the bleeding heart bunny huggers to thank for that nonsense.... but it is there and every time we send someone out with a 7.62 we risk being accused of war crimes

reply to post by DaddyBare

Were I CIC, I'd designate the M-16-series weapons to the females in the military, and we'd have 7.62 based battle rifles.

Smith Enterprises produced a phenomenal muzzle brake for the M-14 as used by the US Coast Guard and the Navy (SEALS).

No muzzle climb, even on full auto.

Wouldn't have to be an M-14, but the design is so reliable and robust, that it may be a very good starting point.

Our military should have different camoflage and uniform packages to match the terrain, as well as weapons to match the terrain.

In desert or mountainous regions, the 7.62 is the MINIMUM round to be using.

If a group has to move fast and far, let some choose the 5.56 for weight.

The truth is, most of our troops can't shoot for ****.

Any commander worth his salt, from squad leader up, should have his men on the range every week. Familiarity and practice breeds accuracy.

The Germans, North Koreans/Chinese, North Vietnamese, Iraqi's, and Afghanis have had lots of problem from country boys.

Who could shoot.

reply to post by dooper


Between you and me I would go one step further... I build a new system around the 7.62 x 63 mm AKA 30-06

Go take a look at this bad boyM110 this maybe the best weapon we currently have available...

reply to post by dooper

The truth is, most of our troops can't shoot for ****.

That's more because of an emphasis on quantity of firepower rather than quality. The which you know far better than I. All the former military in my family, which dates from wwII to present day, all say the same, one round on target is better by far than a thousand that hit nothing, or the wrong target.

Again, you know that far better than I. Just saying, I know lots of guys, and a few gals, who would, and do, agree with you.

reply to post by seagull


dooper is right and I'll tell you why... government cost cutting.... Its better now but back in the 1980's it could be a couple of years between visits to the range... $1 per shoot X 250,000 Marines...

Oh it was real bad, bad enough that a bunch of used to buy our own ammo just to stay sharp.... while I did say it's better there have been shortages where orders have come down limiting practice time if not banning it all together....

Little wonder dooper said our troops cant shoot, they just aren't given the opportunity to learn!

[edit on 21-10-2009 by DaddyBare]

reply to post by seagull

US commanders are generally, crap. They forget their responsibilities, and also forget their primary tasks.

Their responsibilities are to their men. To ensure they have every means to engage the enemy, and survive that engagement.

The most basic principle of combat is the ability to shoot. Without the ability to shoot and HIT targets, they are wasting ammo, space, and even breath.

What good is a soldier that can't shoot quickly, accurately, and reliably?

I took my men out every time we returned to a forward fire base into the heat, dust, and rain to the range. They mumbled, muttered, cursed me for every kind of blasphemy they could think of, but they could all shoot. I made sure of it.

They caught on after a "busy" engagement, and we really took some scalps without losing any of our own. There was no more bitching after that.

The greatest guerrilla fighter that ever walked the earth, man for man, either mounted or on foot, was the Apache.

With an unreliable resupply system, every shot had to count. And they made them count.

The only shots that count are those that hit.

And that takes practice, practice, practice. Which takes time & effort, time & effort, time & effort.

Any commander, from squad leader up, is derelict of duty if he doesn't compel, strongly and determinedly COMPEL his men to become quick, reliable, accurate shooters.

reply to post by DaddyBare


We're accused of it anyway...

The best tool for the task. Seems to this know nothing that the bigger, faster the round hits the target, the better. But that's just me.

Originally posted by seagull
That's more because of an emphasis on quantity of firepower rather than quality. The which you know far better than I. All the former military in my family, which dates from wwII to present day, all say the same, one round on target is better by far than a thousand that hit nothing, or the wrong target.

I was always taught the same thing, that one shot on target is more important than a thousand shots off target.

It hit home when I read an FBI Report on Automatic Weapons and Gangland Violence. It concluded that there were relatively no instances where Automatic Weapons in the hands of gangs were actually deadly to their intended targets, but rather almost all causalities at the hands of gangs armed with Automatic Weapons were collateral, being unintended victims of bullets gone astray. It made me realize that the same is probably true of our soldiers, which would explain the unusually high number of "friendly fire" instances and civilian casualties in modern War Operations that have occurred since Vietnam.

Automatic certainly does not equal Surgical.

However, it has been said many times over that our M-16/M-4 is meant to convey a sense of fear, more so than to be an effective killing weapon. The rapport of an Automatic weapon, especially of the loud M-16, creates more panic and fear than anything else. In Urban Combat, when your enemy doesn't line up in a row in the open, or charge in a codified unit, but is under cover and widely spread out, generating fear is a good defensive strategy. The sound of constant suppressing fire keeps your enemy pinned down in one spot, too fearful to poke out from behind cover to take a shot at you. It may not kill an entrenched enemy, but it keeps our troops from being targets while they are firing. It buys our troops time until another unit can flank the enemy position, or an Airstrike arrives. For that, a thousand bullets sprayed from an M-16 are worth their weight in lead.

reply to post by DaddyBare

Daddybare, I can't recall the study, but it was a detailed analysis of many proposed military and civilian rounds.

The 30.06 was popular in WWI and especially in WWII. It worked.

The interesting thing I learned was WHY the military turned to the .308/7.62X51mm.

It is apparently, through detailed scientific analysis, the most EFFICIENT round I believe in existence.

Some shoot flatter, some harder, but the overall efficiency trophy goes to the .308.

Many smaller framed men had a bit of trouble adjusting to the recoil of the 30.06, and they noted the .308 had almost identical combat ballistics, with a greatly reduced recoil force.

Then, there's a number of weapons that have already been chambered for the .308 - which makes it a bit more simple to supply and cross-feed.

I was really surprised to find out the scientific reasons for the round, and then it made perfect sense.

And it will reliably drop a man out to 800 meters. Not bad for a round that can also feed light machineguns!

reply to post by dooper


Lets say for argument sake we were going to build a completely new weapon... we would want to stay clear of the 7.62 NATO and yes the 30-06 would require a longer bolt and action... but there is one cartage that's not well known,fits neatly between the two and it out performs both... the 308 Norma Mag...

Norma factory loads for the .308 Magnum drive a 200 grain Vulkan bullet to a muzzle velocity (MV) of 2903 fps and muzzle energy (ME) of 3744 ft. lbs. At 200 yards the velocity is 2361 fps and the kinetic energy is 2476 ft. lbs.

we're talking about dropping a moose here... with super flat ballistics to boot... add that to a good modern designed platform and were talking real stopping dropping power

[edit on 21-10-2009 by DaddyBare]

I can tell you from experience that one grain of sand in the extractor mechanism can render an M-16 useless.

Finicky is not a good attribute for a combat weapon.