Why USMC using obsolete M-16 in Iraq?

[ChuckMK23]

I was just viewing a CNN report on Iraq - lots of footage of Marines. With the exception of a few shotguns, it seems every Marine I saw were all armed with a long barrled, old fashioned M-16 rifle.

In an urban situation, this seems disturbingly old fashioned - where as every Soldier you see in the news in Iraq all seems to be armed with an effective, modern looking, and heavily technology enhanced M4 carbine. Even the lowest level Soldier seems so well equipped..


How come the Marines aren't using Aimpoint sights, AN/PEQ-2 laser pointers, Surefire lights, just like the Army is using at every level. The Marines are all shown with archaic iron sighted M-16 A2's.

Why doesn't the Marine Corp modernize their small arms?

 

[Banjo33]

I think they've transitioned to the A3's, same rifle but with modifications to the upper receiver for the new sights. I just read a report somewhere (Marine Times maybe?) discussing this topic and why they chose the -16 over the -4. As far as using "laser pointers" etc, I'm surprised you had to ask--I'm guessing money. We don't have any.

 

[A4sForever]

Marines know their rifles --- they are true riflemen. Marines have historically chosen "rifles" over "carbines". They just don't have the Army's money to get the newest stuff, as a general rule. And the generals do rule, right??

The M4's shorter barrel --- it creates less velocity which produces significantly less effective range for the 5.56mm round. The 5.56 loses a lot of lethality once it drops below @ 800 mps and it does so much "earlier" with the shorter M-4 barrel. The M4's shorter forend and barrel rapidly overheat, compared to the longer barreled M-16 rifle. And to top it off, the M-4's shorter length reduces the length of the gas system, the heart of the M-16 design. This has the net effect of increasing the cyclic rate, creating higher pressures, more wear and tear on the moving parts, and the attendant lessening of reliability. But then, I know a former Force Recon Marine who liked the M-4 due to its "compactness".

TheM-16A4 (with "flat top" receivers, Picatinny accessory rails in place of the integral carrying handle, and a return to 3-round "burst"), is the fourth generation of the M-16 service rifle, and has been in the testing phase for the USMC along with the M-4 carbine rifle more than two years. In August 2002, former Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James L. Jones decided to stay with the “tried and true” M-16 verses the M-4 .... guess the Commandant liked it better? I wonder if that says it all .... ??? The Marines will soon be getting the M16A4 and based upon what I've read I think "reliability" was at the heart of the issue ....

The Marines are never gonna get the XM8 ($$$$) so I guess they are going to make the best of the newest old war horse, the M-16.

 

[Fly Navy]

M-16A4 if I remember correctly. A3 was a flat-top version of the A2 (like the A4 is), though I think it may have had full-auto, can't remember. ANyway, wasn't used much.

The M-16A4 is a modular system, like the M4A1. The Marines also realize the shortcomings of the M855 ammunition in the shorter M4 barrels. I could go into a whole deal about this, but I will point you to http://www.ammo-oracle.com/ instead

The M-4 is not the end all, be all of rifles. It's a carbine. Not always the best tool. Especially in areas like Afghanistan where longer range engagement may be necessary.

Oh, and as far as gucci toys... I'd say money too.

Edited: Damn, A4s beat me to the punch.

 

[Fly Navy]

The Marines are never gonna get the XM8 ($$$$) so I guess they are going to make the best of the newest old war horse, the M-16.

I don't think the Army will either. It seems the XM8 project has been shelved for now. I know they were testing it in Iraq.

When a country needs to choose between the AK-47 and the M-16, if they have the money, they always choose the M-16.

 

[A4sForever]

When a country needs to choose between the AK-47 and the M-16, if they have the money, they always choose the M-16.

Agreed ... I think most of the original problems with the M-16 family of rifles have been solved and most of the negatives you hear today deal with misinformed "old news" stories or issues involving the cartridge.

The rifle, by itself, has been proven over and over and if maintained properly (and when is that NOT important??) it gives great service. It's really versatile and accurate as well. But then, there is that pesky 5.56mm question ....

 

[Fly Navy]

But then, there is that pesky 5.56mm question ....[/b]

Never had to shoot anyone with my AR-15, but I think most problems with the cartridge come from short barreled M-4s and the shorter barrelled 10" variants (WHY?!) using the heavier 62gr M855 w/ the steel penetrator. Historical data shows the 55gr M193 bullet to be a far better performer on people and in shorter barrels. Soldiers always gripe about their ammo too. In WWII, German soldiers wanted .45s for more "stopping power" and Americans wanted the 9mm for more capacity. Same sh!t, different day.

What do you think of the 6.8mm they were messing with?

 

[A4sForever]

What do you think of the 6.8mm they were messing with?

From what I've read (tests/articles -- hmmm ... I almost typed "testicles".. is that Fruedian ?? ) I think it's GREAT ... probably what the M-16 should have been from the get-go. Once the cartridge becomes "mainstream" -- assuming it does --- I am going to buy either a top end or a complete rifle.

Isn't it GREAT having a gun thread back again ... I feel like a kid in a candy store !!!

 

[Fly Navy]

From what I've read (tests/articles -- hmmm ... I almost typed "testicles" Fruedian ?? ) I think it's GREAT ... probably what the M-16 should have been from the get-go. Once the cartridge becomes "mainstream" -- assuming it does --- I am going to buy either a top end or a complete rifle.

Isn't it GREAT having a gun thread back again ... I feel like a kid in a candy store !!!

Funny that the Swedish figured out the 6mm variant a long time ago in their WWII rifles... and it took us this long to even take a look at it.

Gun threads are always good.

 

[Lawman]

Why Iron sights and not Aimpoints. Ever needed to change a battery on an Iron sight??? Exactly. This is the biggest problem the Army is having in its "Land Warrior" system, a battery life of a few days just isnt a good idea when your talking about an infantry weapon system. They work great in the LEO world, because when you get home at night you can simply charge it up or replace the batteries like you do for your flashlight and radio. Some poor sucker in Iraq out guarding a godforsaken piece of Sand might have a little more trouble getting a pack of AAA's when he needs them.

Also Fly, the 10 inch barrels are a product of the Law Enforcement world. With the rise in criminals using Body Armor and the need to get a rifle cartridge into the CQB arena the shorty Carbines are a godsend. Also funny enough the rounds at the ranges were talking about (across a room or down a hallway) actually splinter when they hit a target leaving a massive amount of damage, but having a lower tendency to overpenetrate then if they were hitting a target at 100 meters.

And hey, the Brits wanted to go to a .280 Enfield for there primary battle rifle back in the 50's, but we had to go and muck it up by demanding they conform to the 7.62 Nato so rifle and machine gun ammo would be interchangeable.

Firearms threads are good.

 

[gaijin6423]

The A3 was a return to the full-auto world of the A1, but what a complete b!tch to shoot. Got the chance to shoot it a few years back, and I dunno... Maybe it would work alright if you had it braced in sector stakes/bags while in a fighting hole, but to me, that kind of limits the functionality of the weapon.

There were rumors floating around that we (Marines) were going to all get those sweet 6x ACOG sights, along with the A4, but I'll believe it when I see it. I'm kind of removed from the scene here learning to fly and all, but from what I've heard from friends who are already on their way back from a tour in Iraq, the ACOG's use is still pretty limited. Although, one buddy did manage to blackmail--er, convince someone into giving him enough to supply a few members of his platoon with them.

 

[Fly Navy]

Also Fly, the 10 inch barrels are a product of the Law Enforcement world.

Not true. They had 10" models in Vietnam. Also used them in Mogadishu way before police were messing around with the M-16 family.

 

[ChuckMK23]

I guess the heart of the matter though is no infantryman needs to engage a target over say 250 yards....

 

[BOMBSonHAWKEYES]

I remember on one of my sumer cruises we got to play with m4s for a couple of days at camp lejune, but the safety brief was trumped by the brief we recieved from the armory telling us to keep our eyes peeled in the woods for the removable handgrips and other pices of the rifle. Apparently the version we had just fell appart, and we had to duct tape the thing up so we could play with it - needless to say, a few of my buddies still managed to loose some rifle pices in the woods.

 

[Fly Navy]

I remember on one of my sumer cruises we got to play with m4s for a couple of days at camp lejune, but the safety brief was trumped by the brief we recieved from the armory telling us to keep our eyes peeled in the woods for the removable handgrips and other pices of the rifle. Apparently the version we had just fell appart, and we had to duct tape the thing up so we could play with it - needless to say, a few of my buddies still managed to loose some rifle pices in the woods.

Don't know what their problem was, my M4orgery is tight and secure.