PBS: Weapons of US soldiers in Iraq 'plagued with problems'

[billbuckhead]

PBS: Weapons of US soldiers in Iraq 'plagued with problems'
David Edwards and Greg Wasserstrom
Published: Monday September 24, 2007


The M-16, the choice rifle of the United States Armed Forces, turns 50 years old this month and is still plagued by many of the same problems it had half a century ago, putting American troops in Iraq at a severe disadvantage when it comes to small arms combat, the PBS program Newshour reported tonight.

"That AK-74 outhits the M-16 by two to one on full automatic," said Jim Sullivan, referring to the Russian-made assault rifle, now in its third generation. "And the reason there were 100 million AK's made wasn't to equip the Russian army - it was to give our Third World opponents. The United States can't win ground wars anymore."
-------------snip-------------------
<http://rawstory.com//news/2007/PBS_Guns_of_US_Soldiers_in_0924.html>

Sometimes I wonder if they promote variations of the M-16/AR-15 so much in the US cause they have trouble exporting them. Israel even builds a machined clone of the AK.

[monktonman]

1. anyone know what company makes the m-16? n/t

[Doc_Technical]

3. Check here.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm

[qdemn7]

4. FN Herstal USA

Currently makes the weapon. The patents have expired. Colts used to make it, but lost the contract.

[qdemn7]

2. It's more complicated than that...

The AR platform is inherently more accurate than the AK platform. The AK is a superior battlefield weapon. The AR is superior at accuracy and the fact it's become adopted as the weapon of choice by the civilian market is due to it's accuracy, low recoil and to the large amount of customization parts available. Americans like to customize things.

Now as far as the Army's problems, that breaks down to two things. First is the Not Invented Here syndrome. We saw this in the '50s when NATO was adopting a common assault rifle. Almost every NATO member EXCEPT the US adopted then FN FAL. The US adopted the M-14, which simply was as not as good a weapon as the FAL, but of course WAS invented here.

Second as the piece stated, the Army wants long-term procurement programs. The M-16 works, albeit not well, but it works, and any replacement might FAIL and cost some officer his job.

The American soldier will not get a new rifle until the President and Congress develops some balls and tells the Army to do so without fail.

One is already designed and deployed, and doesn't even require a complete new weapon only the upper. H&Ks 416 Better than M4, but you can’t have one.

If a completely new weapons system were needed, then there is Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR)


Unfortunately all of the above weapon systems suffer from the same "problem", the Army's persistent NIH syndrome. Army tests of rival carbines postponed

[monktonman]

5. what about the money

I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at

[qdemn7]

6. No I can't.....

One of the successor rifles would either end up being made by FN or Heckler and Koch. FN already has a manufacturing facility here in the US making the M-16/M-4 and the M-249 SAW. Assuming H&K won a contract for a new rifle, they would be obligated to do the same. Any new rifle would be made here.

[monktonman]

7. I guess you right, its more complicated than that

What I was thinking is that if this weapon is really not that great
yet our guys are still using it, there must be a money reason for it.
why else would we not just use a better rifle?
I dont understand.

[qdemn7]

9. Watch the PBS piece

It explains it quite well.

[monktonman]

12. I guess I'm way, way out of my element.

I was just thinking that someone (major GOP donor) must have made a buttload of cash
on the patent for the m-16 and that why we still use that weapon today
Thats what I was getting at.
I was also thinking about how the life of one soldier is worth the billions it would
cost to develope a new weapon. I'd throw my ten bucks in.

[Pavulon]

15. Massive ship that turns slowly

The armed forces are generally resistant to change. Especially something where change is not an absolute requirement.

Personally I would rather carry a different rifle if I was sitting in the sand all day. But they all require cleaning. hk416, fnc, famas, g36. Even the ak function better clean.

[monktonman]

17. I function better when clean as well n/t

[Pavulon]

10. Billions of reasons

to retrofit the arsenal over to a new weapon would be a massive cost. Eventually it will happen. That is a very different thing than what is being promoted on this article.

[benEzra]

24. Keep in mind the guy PBS is interviewing...

is trying to sell HIS OWN rifle, the Ultimax, as a competitor to the M16 in the export market (so far, only Singapore has adopted it, AFAIK). Think of the PBS interview as an infomercial for the Ultimax, and take it with the appropriate grains of salt. There is some truth to the criticism, but it's not as black and white as he would lead you to believe.

The M16/M4's good points are its excellent ergonomics (arguably best in the world, particularly for the M4), modularity, ease of attaching optics/lights, light weight, and its accuracy capability. Downsides are its very small caliber and its sensitivity to dirt. It is possible to consider the good points as outweighing the bad.

Regarding the ergonomics, here is a tutorial on AR-15 operation, the civilian non-automatic cousin of the M16 and one of the most popular target rifles in America. The controls are very well thought out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqxraAQ55W0

[Peregrine]

14. M16 was the first weapon I ever fired

In less than one day I was able to hit targets in excess of 300m away. In semi-automatic I could maintain the rifle on-target after each shot. The M16 is accurate and one of the easiest rifles to learn to fire accurately. It is touchy, you have to take care of it constantly, but if you do you will have very little problem with it. It is light which affords the user more mobility, and you can carry more ammunition. But like most of the Army's equipment, it was designed for a European war, not for jungle or desert.

[Pavulon]

8. Wrong

The ak can NOT group patterns as tight as the m4 that is in wide use. The stoner platform's weakness has always been direct impingement. Combustion gas is directed directly into the bolt assembly. This requires a clean weapon.

This design makes for an accurate controllable weapon in full auto fire due to lack of moving mass. It is hard to explain but is like unsprung weight on a race car, just not good.

However new gas piston weapons like the hk g36, fnc, and 416 can get the same accuracy with a weapon that does not require the same level of cleaning. The cost of a switch would be in the billions.

A clean rifle will almost always fire. I never had a to use sports on an m16a(x) or m4. But I never had it in the sand and dirt.

Any accurate weapon, left to shit, will malfunction. Including the m2, the 240g, and 249. All MUST be clean to be reliable.

Bottom line the AK is spray and pray trash. The same loose tolerances that make it tremendously reliable make inherently inaccurate. Hence the safety, safe, auto, single. That was the soviet mindset. People running all over spraying fire.

Where an m16 or m4 was(is) safe single, then auto or burst.

Dont believe me, ask around.

[billbuckhead]

11. Yeah, the AK-47 is such a bad gun, the Israeli's lovingly make highline ones

Technical description.
Basically, the Galil assault rifle can be described as a modified Kalashnikov AK-47 design. The key differences between the Galil and the AK-47 are;

the Galil featured a machined steel receivers of the original AK-47 rifles, but of slightly different shape.
The AK-47-style safety - selector switch at the right side of the gun is complemented by the additional smaller switch at the left side of the receiver, above the pistol handle.
The cocking handle is bent upward, so it can be operated with either hand.
The sights of the Galil featured a front hooded post, mounted on the gas block, with the rear diopter sight, mounted on the receiver top cover. Rear sight is of the flip-up type, with settings for 300 and 500 meters.
Additional folding night sights with luminous inserts can be raised into position, which allows to aim the gun in the low light conditions at the ranges of up to 100 meters.
The barrel and the flash hider can be used to launch the rifle grenades from the barrel, using the blanc or live cartridges (depending on the rifle grenade type).
The Galil ARM also features a folding detachable bipods and a carrying handle.
The bipod base incorporates a bottle opener and a wire cutter.
The standard folding buttstock is patterned after FN FAL Para, folds to the right to save the space.
Some of the late production Micro-Galil (MAR) rifles also are fitted with the Picatinny-type rail, which allows to mount various sighting devices.
Standard AR and ARM rifles can be fitted with scope mounting rail on the left side of the receiver.
All 5.56mm Galil rifles are fed using proprietary 35 or 50 rounds curved box magazines with AK-47 style locking.
M16-type magazines can be used via the special adapter.
7.62mm Galil rifles are fed using proprietary 25 rounds box magazines.
Civilian semi-automatic Galil variants sometimes are fitted with 10 rounds magazines to comply with local firearms laws.
-------------snip----------------------
<http://www.ak-47.us/Israel.php>

[Pavulon]

13. They do not use it any more.

The issue weapon is the m4 and they are looking buying small batches of the bullpup tavor. The vast majority of their arsenal is the m16/m4.

The galil was never in wide use in the IDF. Not a bad weapon. But not an m16 either.

There are a few great shoulder weapons available if cost is no object.

But you still have to clean it...The ak suffers more neglect and works well in the hands of those who fail to see the importance of a clean weapon. I guess CLP, dental picks, and brass brushes are under rated in the third world.

Realistic replacements for the stoner design. But there is probably a great design sitting around somewhere else.

[monktonman]

16. wow, I'm ok with guns

but those things are scary looking.

[Pavulon]

18. They are infantry tools

All are designed to function in absurdly bad conditions. Cold, hot, mud, sand, wherever the soldier may be. Oddly the round used in most hunting rifles carries much more energy. A shotgun is more deadly in the hands of an individual untrained person.

Very specialized, but do their job very well.

In comparison, an infantryman in the civil war could fire 4 or 5 aimed shots a minute. Now an infantryman can fire 30 or so aimed shots (unchanged since the 50's.

In sheer volume they can lay down 30 round bursts in a few seconds, from the same rifle.

When added up cover fire, the vast majority of what is used (hence small fast round), and aimed fire allow for infantry to maneuver in different terrain.

It is a very well thought out system.

[billbuckhead]

19. But AR-15/M-16 are also "sport" rifles for the black rifle crowd

Something iconic for Ted Nugent to flash on stage while threatening 3 women and an African-American presidential candidate. A tool for terror is more like it. On the other hand, it's kind of like that other icon, harley-davidson, but "merikans love them cause they're our own no matter how bad they really are and how they don't sell overseas very well. Isn't this what we accuse the Russians of?

[benEzra]

27. And the most popular centerfire target rifles in America, due to their accuracy and ergonomics.

[benEzra]

28. On the bottom 3, the rails on the forend are for attaching scopes, lights, lasers, and whatnot.

The industrial looking buttstock is adjustable for length. The thing on the muzzle (flash suppressor) redirects the muzzle flash forward, out of the shooter's line of sight; .223/5.56x45mm produces a lot of gas for its small bore diameter, and the muzzle flame from a .223/5.56mm carbine can be annoying during the day and downright startling in low light without a flash suppressor.

Top one is a Heckler and Koch.

[benEzra]

26. Except Israel replaced its Galils with M16's.

The Galils are fine rifles (and you can actually buy a non-automatic civilian version in the U.S., for like $1000), but they are no longer front-line weapons in Israel; M16's/M4's are. The Galil is very reliable, but heavy and not very modular.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

25. True, but when you're spraying 7.62 rounds,

If someone gets hit, they're gonna have issues. Of course, when you have to empty a clip to takeout a few marks, you will go through alot of quite heavy ammunition.

Although, after speaking to an Army engineer, I found apparently AK is still a widely distributed weapon among Special Forces and similar groups.

[eppur_se_muova]

20. They actually named the successor to the AK-47 the AK-74 ??

The AK-74 assault rifle is a modernized version of the AK-47 developed in 1974, chambered for the 5.45x39mm cartridge. The weapon entered mass-production in 1976. The newest variant, the AK-74M, is the current main service rifle for the Russian Federation armed forces since the early 1990s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-74

Bad news for the dyslexic.

[davepc]

21. the Russians like to name things after the year they were developed

Wanna guess what year the T-80 tank was introduced? :)

[mvccd1000]

22. "That AK-74 outhits the M-16 by two to one on full automatic,"

But M-16's don't fire on full automatic any more, and haven't for decades. They fire on semi-auto or three round burst. Full automatic is close to worthless in most situations, doing nothing but wasting ammo. Advantage: M-16 (or M4, as that seems to be much more common over here).

[benEzra]

23. Some truth there, plus a lot of BS.

The AK-74 (5.45x39mm) is slightly less powerful than the M16, not twice as powerful. 7.62x39mm (AK-47) is slightly more powerful. .308 Winchester/7.62x51mm is nearly twice as powerful.

The M16's direct-impingement gas system is definitely more sensitive to dirt and underlubrication than the Kalashnikov piston system and its generous receiver clearances, but the M16 (and its non-automatic civilian cousin, the AR-15) WILL work if you keep the bolt carrier well lubricated (the dirtier the environment, the more oil you need) and the ejection port cover closed. If the bolt carrier gets dry, it will lock up if there is much grit in there. Underlubrication is the cause of most failures.

30-round magazines (not "clips", clips are for loading magazines) are used because they are a nice balance of capacity, size, and weight. The 100-round magazines (Beta-C mags) this guy is talking about certainly look "kewl" in the movies and video games, but are VERY finicky, susceptible to damage if dropped or whacked, slow to reload, bulky to carry (30's are flat, 100's aren't), and really screw up the rifle's balance. The M16 isn't a squad auto and was never intended to be.

The guy trashing the M16 is trying to sell his competing rifle. AFAIK, England, Germany, and Switzerland have NOT adopted the Ultimax; only Singapore has. That doesn't mean it's not a good rifle, but he's definitely overstating the case for it.

"Designed for firing from the hip"? Please. Look at the grip angle; it's made for firing from the shoulder. The sights (arguably the best on any military rifle). The adjustable stock. The optics (yes, those $500 Aimpoints are on there merely to look kewl when hip-shooting). Don't forget that he's trying to sell his rifle...

The term "assault rifle" is a translation of the German word Sturmgehwer (storm rifle) and refers to selective-fire rifles and carbines firing reduced-power rifle cartridges.

"Hanging more stuff off the rifle compromises its reliability"? Nope. External stuff doesn't affect internal function. Optics and lights make a rifle a lot more usable, though. The main developments in small arms (both military and civilian) in the last 40 years have been in the area of optics and accessories.

BTW, the coolest picture I have ever seen of a direct-impingement gun being fired...check this out.


http://www.m-mason.smugmug.com/gallery/3489781#196589531

That is a civilian AR-15 (non automatic), but the gas system is the same as the M16. Combustion gases are tapped from the barrel at the front of the handguards, where the pressure has dropped to 3000 psi or so, and piped into the receiver, where the gas pressure launches the bolt carrier back and initiates the reload cycle. A really fast camera can capture the gas flame in the open ejection port, where the hot gases from the gas tube meet fresh oxygenated air in the receiver (that's mostly a hydrogen flame, IIRC). The AK system confines the hot gases to the front of the handguards and uses a long piston to move the bolt carrier instead. The advantage of the AK system is that it keeps the receiver cleaner, and adds more reciprocating mass for reliability; the advantage of the AR-15/M16 system is that it allows extreme accuracy if the gun is tuned for it (as tight as 1/4 arcminute precision with some civilian AR's).

Sometimes I wonder if they promote variations of the M-16/AR-15 so much in the US cause they have trouble exporting them.

No, most of the civilian AR-15 market is served by different companies than those that make the M16. FN Herstal has the M16 contract, but most civilian AR-15's are made by Bushmaster, Stag, Rock River Arms, DSA, Colt, Armalite, Olympic Arms, DPMS, and a number of smaller companies like Lewis Machine & Tool. Colt does make M4's for the military, though. There are significant parts differences between M16's and AR-15's as well.

Israel even builds a machined clone of the AK.

They used to (the Galil). Israel now uses M16's, although they have recently designed their own selective-fire bullpup (the Tavor) to replace them.