# The M16/AR15 type rifle/cabine



## 45 (May 16, 2012)

I have talk to some of our soilders who have been in combat in both Iraq & Afghanistan & ask them what they thought about the M4 our any type of M16 rifle & they told me basicalley that they were a piece of junk that if you don't keep them squikey clean that they couldn't depend on them in a firefight they told me that they had to clean them 3 to 4 times a day & that if you wasen't in a firefight I also ask them about the M14 & they said that they were a lot more dependble they were hevey but you could depend on them I also talk to my dad & he told me that when he was vietnam he had to clean his M16 a1 2 times a day & he was always on base he was never out in the field he was on artellary radar when he was vietnam Iwould like for any soilders that have been in combat to tell me what they think about the M16 type rifle/carbine also thankyou for serving our country :smt1099 p.s. sorry about the speeling I don't have dictionary handy


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

Just out of curiosity, just what soldiers of current generation (what were their "jobs') did you ask about the M14?

There were a lot of issues with the M16A1s in Vietnam, apparently corrosive ammunition, lack of cleaning kits, and the environment of the jungle aren't a good combination.

As to the M16A2 and M4 variants, yes you have to clean them in order to keep them running, but typically once every couple of days was enough, and when I say kept clean, I'm not talking detail strip clean, but a good once over with a rod and brush. That of course varies with use and conditions etc.

The sand gets everywhere. I still find sand in some stuff I still have from '03.

I have no issue with the M16A2 / M4 variants, I think that the new generation of piston driven uppers is a step in the right direction, but thus far they are reportedly not operating at huge enough percentage above the direct impingement guns to warrant fielding a new service rifle, but I'd wager that we see a swap of upper halves at the very least in the next 10-15 years. Possibly a new rifle given current trends.

The *Marines have accepted a piston driven AR variant as the new Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR)*, the spec-ops community likes the SCAR-H (Scar 17S) and *HK416 *which are all piston driven, so while I'd say that a change is in the wind, it's not necessarily due to the M16A2/A4 or M4 variants being POS', but rather just an evolutionary step forward with improved tech.

Both the arguments for and against the rifle (Direct impingement ARs) are valid, but the arguments are so multifaceted that there really is not a good answer.

There's the *reliability factor:*



> The M4/M16 family is both praised and criticized for its current performance in the field. In recent years, the M4 finished dead last in a sandstorm reliability test, against 3 competitors that include a convertible M4 variant. Worse, the 4th place M4 had over 3.5x more jams than the 3rd place finisher. Was that a blip in M4 buys, or a breaking point? DID explains the effort, the issues, and the options, as the Army moves forward with an "Individual Carbine" competition. But will it actually replace the M4?


But without the actual numbers and more data on the "sand storm" test, that could just be fluff, if we're talking 4 jams to 12 jams over the course of 1K rounds after being subjected to a no BS sand storm....how realistic of a test is that?

Then you have the caliber debate, the 5.56 NATO vs. the 6.8 RemSpc vs the 7.62X51 (.308) NATO...

A lot of people think we need a better suited caliber for putting folks down, but a lot of people think the 5.56 is just fine...

Given the current political mess in what it takes to get anything done (just look up the *JCP project*) it will take a lot to get us a new service rifle. Maybe now that actions in the Middle East have tapered down we will have more resources available to do some serious looking at the current service rifles, do some studies, review more after action reports and more importantly have some $$$ to spend of whatever administration is in office allows it.


----------



## Charliefox (Dec 10, 2011)

I think a large part of this perception is the fact that the new generation soldier is so used to having everything be perfect they forget to "adapt, improvise and overcome." The M-16/M-4 are machines that will operate in any environment as long as they are cared for; this has been proven out over the many years of use. However, if the time is not given to that care, they won't work as advertised making soldier think they're junk. I've talked to many Marines, soldiers and Airmen about these weapons as well. I found that if unit discipline on weapons care is kept at even a basic level the rifles will go "bang" when expected to. When that discipline wanes, problems arise. Our fighting men and women, as well as many of our civillian peace-keepers have used these rifles to great effect and have proven that the concept is solid. The rifle is a tool; the operator is the key.


----------



## 45 (May 16, 2012)

some of them was infantrey some were airbourne I don't remember which unit they were in it was while I was at a couple of diffrent bus station when I riding a bus for a job I was listing to them talking about the war & ask them what they thought & they gave me there input I can't remember wourd for wourd what they said just what I got from what they said it hard to remember everything when you haven't had that much sleep & been riding a bus for 22 hours & it being three years ago


----------

