Why Are our Soldiers still using M16s?

Question

The M16 is old and outdated and lacks stopping power . We are not some 3rd world Country our Soldiers Deserve the Best weapons available . Even Mexico has a better Assault Rifle than us don't Believe me its Called the FX-05.What do you think should the M16 be replaced or should we keep it? personally I like the FN SCAR And I think There is no excuse our Military should not have best weapons body armor and equipment available for our servicemen and i thinks ridiculous Mexico has a Better assault rifle than us

Answer 1

Yes we are still using them. The one story that we are not hearing is at the end of last year we started arming the Iraqis with them as they used to have AK 47's. They requested them. They like how accurate they are. And now we have a more peaceful Iraq.  

Answer 2

I believe I can answer your question with three words: budget, budget, budget.  As long as the M-16's are still functional, I doubt the Army is going to spend millions of dollars (or more) to upgrade our weaponry.  Sad but true.

Answer 3

you must be a troll

have you ever considered that you can pack two bullets of the .223 cal as opposed to one of the .308 cal???

makes a huge difference when a firefight causes relief shipments to be cancelled.  maybe thats why we win so many firefights.  attrition.  

Answer 4

I'm debating on your actual service if you think a 5.56 cannot stop someone.  I was there as Infantry and I can say for 100% certain that it drops people easily.  We have updated the M16 to the M4 for MOUNT and urban assault.  The rounds are cheap and you can carry a lot of them without adding excessive weight.  If you've ever carried 1,000 rounds of 7.62, then you understand the difference.

The M4 is accurate and reliable in most environments, and with proper maintance, can last a very long time.  Add to that our massive stores of parts and the fact that soldiers can take it apart and replace just about every part in the field and you have a damned good rifle.

If the M16/M4 series was so bad, then the Iraqi's wouldn't be asking us to outfit them with it.  They've seen it's ability in combat, I'd advise you to stop playing COD4 and stick to things you know.

It's not an OPSEC issue if you're back in the states and tell people what unit you were with at what time frame.  I think you're just worried that someone who was actually there will call you out.  

As much as I hate to say it, switching weapons is also very expensive.  You also have to figure that in when you're talking replacement

Answer 5

Good post, but I wouldn't say the M-16 lacks stopping power...I have stop or seen alot of stopping in combat. I do agree we need to upgrade to a close bolt system and the SCAR is one choice. H&K and others produce some good weapons, but the Colt mafia is strong. The weapon from Mexico would need to be tested in combat in the SW Asia and other enviroments before it would gain credibility. Not saying it isn't good. Deserts, cities and some jungles against rioters, ilegal aliens and guerillas aren't enough. I would give it a chance though. I open for anything. h**l, I loved the M-14 to use in Afghanistan more than my M-4. So much I bought one and it's a weapon older than me!

Answer 6

M4's all the way.  

Answer 7

I have a 223 , the lower power civilian version of the round, and It is highly accurate and can take down deer and bears pretty easily. I have no doubt it would take down someone, especially since it make these massive caverns inside of animals because it tumbles when it hits something soft. It does not tumble when it hits something hard, like a tree or wall, it will just keep going until it hits flesh.

I also have a SKS, which fires the same round as a AK-47, and Its a piece. It only accurate out to about 100 yards. If you look on youtube, you can find a video where they fire the AK next to a M-16 an full auto at 200 yards, and the AK misses with every single round, while the 16 puts every round within 1.5 feet of each other.

Answer 8

Most terrorist in the middle east aren't armored to the bone. A M16 is more than enough.  

Answer 9

it takes money to replace equipment.

Are you willing to pay more taxes to replace every m16 the gov't owns?

I didn't think so.

btw I use an m4 not a m16

Answer 10

the thing is, Mexico does not have a military nearly the size of ours, and I doubt every mexican soldier has the FX-05...I have no problem with the M4 for every soldier/marine, and let the specialty MOS's get their job specific weapons (machine gunners, snipers, grenadiers)  Of course SF can do whatever they want, like always.  

The real question is Why do we still use the M9??  

Answer 11

Talk to your congressman about it they hold the purse strings!

Vet-USAF

Answer 12

Let me shoot you in your chest area and then tell me how it lacks stopping power..

Our targets are humans and not buffalo..