I've fired hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of ammunition. All of it I sent down range between 1994 and 2002. All of it was paid by U.S. taxdollars. I've never fired a weapon outside of the supervision of the United States Marine Corps. The weapons that I did fire were impressive--M60s, MK19s, Squad Assault Weapons, M25 canons. The targets focused upon were not: dog targets, WWII-era tanks, moving plastic GIs. I fired, thank God, at no actual human beings. No human beings, thank God, fired back. The weapon I enjoyed firing most was the simple M16A2 rifle.

The M16A2's progeny, the shorter, lighter M4 is under attack. This doesn't surprise. The M16A2's ancestor, the M16, came under attack from the beginning and its predecessor, the M14, came under attack too. Its enemies, aside from the Viet Cong, were military wonks who found much to criticize. In the M14, its wooden stock altered the bullet's trajectory in the soaked jungle environment. The kick that resulted from automatic ensured inaccuracy. The M16A2's "kick" is almost non existent. Because of the M14's inefficient use of rounds the M16A2 that I fired in the Marine Corps was not an automatic machine gun. It is the product of the "one shot, one kill" philosophy. The three-round burst is as Rambo as it gets with the M16A2, which, I think, leads to a rifleman concentrating on the target rather than on depressing the trigger. The former results in dead combatants; the latter, in wasted rounds.

But the M16A2 had complaints--mainly that it was too unweildy for urban and jungle environments--and so the shorter, lighter M4 was born. Alas, solutions to old problems bring new problems. I have read that the shorter barrel, for instance, results in overheating. I wonder if its stumpiness detracts from its accuracy and range, two outstanding attributes of the M16A2. Many of the other complaints lodged against the M16A2 are applied to the M4 as well. Its .556 round is too small. It jams too often. It is outdated. I have read that the jamming problems (Tap! Rack! Ba--I'm dead!) from the M16A2 have been bequeathed to the M4. This is a problem, particularly in the sandy conditions of Iraq.

"What we have is a fat contractor in Colt who's gotten very rich off our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," Senator Tom Coburn told the Associated Press. "The fact is, the American GI today doesn't have the best weapon. And they ought to." Colt's contract with the military ceases in 2009. Just as the M16 replaced an outdated M14 in the jungles of Vietnam, many are suggesting that the outdated M4 be replaced in the sands of Iraq. If the M4 isn't the best combat weapon for an infantryman, what is?

It it ain't broke, don't fix it. The M4 has its problems, but do you really want to switch horses midstream? In other words, the middle of a war is not the time for experimentation. Or is it? The M16 replaced the M14 in the midst of the Vietnam War. And its this last item that may spell the death of the M16 family of weapons: the basic rifle is more than forty years old. Wouldn't you find it strange if Chesty Puller in Korea used the same weapon that Sergeant York used in World War I? Given the rapid advance in technology, it strikes a lot of people as even stranger that the infantryman in Iraq is using essentially the same weapon that the infantryman in Vietnam used. Technology has changed more rapidly in those forty or so years than arguably at any time in history. Yet, soldiers and Marines still carry the same basic weapon their Vietnam Era-brethren did.

The Stealth Fighter first took off in the early 1980s and was grounded this year. The camouflage pattern--based as it was on the forests of Europe--that was used on the utility blouse and trousers that I wore in the Marine Corps for all of my eight years retired at the same time that I departed. But the M16 endures and evolves. Like the Marines who fire it, it has adapted and overcome.

But after more than forty years of sending tumbling .556 rounds into the bodies of the enemy, the M16/M16A2/M4 is taking heavy fire. After inflicting casualties in Vietnam, Panama, Kuwait, and points beyond, the M16 family of weapons may be one of the many casualties of the Iraq war.

Whatever happened to the new Infantry weapon that was supposedly to come out?
http://www.murdoconline.net/pics/xm8c.jpg

I also heard that the M9 will be replaced soon with the Glock 22 .40 SW.

Still clinging to your guns and religion I see.

Having never fired any of the weapons mentioned above and having never actually served in the military, (my eye sight is not good enough), I would be unable to make an objective determination on any of these weapons regarding their strengths and weaknesses. What does seem clear is the most dangerous external threats that the US faces are from Russia and China and the US lags behind Russia in its nuclear capabilties and it lags behind both Russia and China in its conventional military capabilities. Frankly the Iraq war seems to have been a huge distraction for the US. During this time Russia and China have made significant upgrades to their armed forces and the US has not.

In any event, regardless who the next president turns out to be the US and Coaliton forces will be withdrawing from Iraq soon. The military is being worn down and the American people will not tolerate a continuation of American military operations in Iraq. Hopefully American leaders will focus on what is most important from a national security perspective. This is 1.)securing the borders, 2.) Developing more of our own oil and gas reserves, 3..)less involvement in the affairs of other nations, and 4.)significant upgrades to American military capabilities.

Our enemies are constantly adapting. We should to. As such, the N16 family of weapons will likely eventually need to be retired and replaced by a mordern weapon. This will likely need to be done in order to regain some kind of parity with Russia, China, and others.

There are many who think that Russia and China, in particular, have no aggressor intentions toward the United States and that the next battleground will be economic and not military. I think this is a naïve understanding of what makes these nations and the world tick.

They are always saber rattling and have histories of aggression along with using a large percentage of their wealth to explore new and exciting ways to improve their military capabilities.

That said, the U.S. still has THE best military and THE best technological advantages. For now.

Da Gov....

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/the_taxpayer_frogs_in_the_irs.html

RadicalRightWinger,
are you referring to the OICW program? On Wikipedia , it says "it has largely been a failure in terms of achieving the specific program goals (e.g. replacing the M16)." It seems the priority idea was to improve the grenade Launcher with a semi-automatic magazine but the smaller grenades ended up less than adequately effective.

Dan,
How was the M203 grenade launcher? If I recall correctly, you have boasted your grenade throwing range and accuracy, but how were you with a launcher?

i did 3yrs. in the infantry, so i fired them all. loved every second of it. so now i own almost all of them but not the big boomers :( the m4 is a good weapon, but it needs to be maintained. but also it is over 40yrs old, there are better rifles out there. the thing i hear about is knock down power. these ragheads are driven, and alot on drugs so the 5.56 aint knocken down. the chubbie iragi might need 2-3 hits but the skinny afganie 1. i would like to see a upgrade in firepower, but that mean more weight to carry around. thats bad news to grunts.

TFM: I won a Marine Corps coin in a grenade throwing competition based on distance and accuracy. I hit an MRE box quite a distance away. I have only fired rounds from the 203 on a few ocassions. It's strange because you generally aim the weapon at the air instead of at the target. In other words, you have to calibrate for distance and sometimes when you're in an open field it's tough judging how near or far an object is. Unlike throwing a grenade, where a guy off the street might be able to do it as well with five minutes of instruction as any Marine, excelling with the 203, methinks, is the result of practice.

Tagmnbagm: What proponents of the M16 often note regarding the M16's .556 round is its tumbling action, which supposedly makes for a gory entry. In other words, the tumbling action is supposed to make up for the size deficiency. Is this "tumbling action" unique to the M16 family of weapons? Does it make up for the power disadvantages it has with the AK's .762 round? Here is the big question: which is better, M16 or AK47?

Speaking of the M16 evolving, I saw on Future Weapons the other day that there is a prototype rifle, the "Magpul Masada Assault Rifle," that can shoot both the .556 and .762 round. Here's the description of the weapon from the show's website: "The new gun successfully integrates the best features of the existing M16 with the ability to make a quick change of barrels from 5.56 mm to the heavier 7.62 mm. With an innovative modular design, the Masada accepts most M16 parts while allowing for a rapid conversion between calibers and missions."

As for which I'd rather have, give me stopping power over volume any day.

"Whatever happened to the new Infantry weapon that was supposedly to come out?"

The program was cancelled in 2005:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM8_rifle

yea the masada is kickass. hey Dan, i would say the ak is tops. but i would take the 16. i like the sights better