Why are we still using the M16?!?

Question

It's Mid stock, meaning the barrel starts at the middle of the gun, which effects the recoil (it goes up when fired) and it is longer then necessary. Rear stock rifles, the barrel covers the length of the gun starting at the butt, have very little recoil and are much shorter and lighter

It's right handed, while most other armies have ambidextrous rifles, so if you happen to be left handed you either have to shoot right handed or get a face full of hot shell cases

It has a very poor clip design that makes it a pain to switch that require a specific angle to insert it and then slam it in in a rocking motion that often feels like it's in when it's not and no two rifles are the same too, just ask any service member. There are now toploading rifles that clip in without a hitch with great ease and can be transparent to keep track of ammo without having to stop looking down the sights

It's heavy

It is high maintenance, complex, and has a very high failure rate

It's delicate (well for a rifle)

It hot fires (fires without pulling the trigger due to heat) extremely easily and empties clips when it does

It was designed in 1959 (that's almost 50 years!!!)

So why are we still using this rifle?!

Answer 1

Ever heard of the M16A2 rifle.

It can be fired right or left handed because it has a built in brass deflector.

The buffer spring in the stock takes most of the recoil so it doesn't go up when fired.

The clips slide straight in and lock in place,

and within my ten years in the army I have never seen an M16 hotfire.

Answer 2

I talked with a guy who had been an Infantry private in the Russian Army.

We spoke at length about training, weapons, discipline, all kinds of stuff.

They didn't really train the average Soldier on marksmanship, the way we do.  The AK family of weapons isn't really up to it.

He was full of questions about "Stoner's Rifle" (as he called the M-16).

Apparently, the Russians were very respectful of the capabilities of the M-16, especially as far as accuracy goes.

Answer 3

I served with the 2nd Ranger Battalion. Our primary weapon was the M4 Carbine and not the M16. It's shorter, lighter, has a telescoping stock, and is a h**l of allot easier to jump with.

M4 high points for me.

It only has semi-auto and 3 round burst, so you aren't really affected by recoil or anything like that. Besides we hardly ever used 3 round burst because, unless the situation requires that you gain fire superiority fast like an ambush or something like that.

Recoil is extremely minor. The kick is hardly noticeable. Also if you shoot with your left, you want really have a problem with any casings because the brass deflector is very effective.

Weight. I didn't find it a problem, its like right around 5 or 6 pounds. Honestly, I liked the weight because it can come in useful if need be.

I had one and only one issue ever with the M4, and it was due to the shell casing and not the weapon. It's called a stove pipe, when the casing is not fully ejected after it's fired and it jams the bolt. All you really have to do is keep the weapon clean. Many soldiers, mainly in non-infantry units, don't seem to focus as much on weapons maintenance as I feel they should. If you get the chance, field strip it and clean the thing, it takes hardly any time whatsoever if you stay disciplined and do it like you should.

I know that you were talking mainly about the M16, but the M14 was my primary and I didn't know if you had the same feelings on it as well as the M16.

Answer 4

There is a true answer to this question.  It's all about money and rightfully so.  We still use them because they work and we have plenty in stock.  When people ask why we don't have better body armor, I say the same thing.  Sure, we could theoretically give every soldier a personal tank to ride around in, but that money has to come from somewhere.

Answer 5

"Heavy?!"

Dude, soldiers used to think it was ineffective because it is so light!

Its made of really light plastics and composites

And it is very accurate, long ranged (somewhat, anyways) and can put a small round in someone, which will then tumble...

There have been many improvements over the years, too...

Answer 6

It works very well.

Answer 7

The military is switching over the the M-4 Carbine rifles right now.  Its a slow process in doing so but it is happening.  I personally like the M-16 better for longer range accuracy.  The M-4 is a lot better for ground ops that require building and room searches and clearing.  

I've been firing the M-16/M-4 rifles for over 6 years now and have never had one accidentally discharge due to heat like you stated.  

We still use the Browning .50Cal Machine Guns and they were designed earlier than the M-16.  

The ammo problems you describe are coming from inexperienced users, who have not had much hands on time with the weapon system.  They are actually quite reliable, however dust and sand tend to foul them pretty easily, which is remedied by using Militec rather than CLP(Cleaner Lubricant Protectant).  Militec does not attract dirt and dust like CLP and is becoming a more sought after lubricant for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

Left hand (ambidextrous) configurations are available for these weapons and are easily added by your unit armorer (all you have to do is ask, or well that's how its supposed to be anyhow).  

Any weapon when fired in either a burst or full auto configuration tends to ride up while fired, due to the natural recoil of the weapon system.  Even pistols do the same when rapid fired.  Go try it yourself and you will see what I mean.  

Kdubbs is correct, there are other weapon systems in testing right now, and its just a long process to get a new weapon or any piece of equipment for that matter added to the military arsenal.

Answer 8

It kills people very well.

As heavy as what?

9 pieces for field strip, 5 of them the bolt group.

A1 version allows left handed fire without problem

Burst limiter saves ammo, allows more accurate placement of rounds.

Is a true MOA weapon, even though not important at battle ranges.

62 gr. round can enter and exit NATO standard steel helmet at 500m.

AK-47 was designed in......1947!! That's 61 years ago.

Answer 9

I agree and disagree... the m16 has and still is a very effective weapon.. its range is outstanding. thats the reason the marines still use it ahead of the m4. in fact a investigation had to be done because marines were getting to many headshots against Iraqi insurgents. people thought they were being beheaded!... although range is not too necessary in the urban combat environment modern wars are being fought in.. I think we should upgrade to the XM8. this gun is proven better then even the m4. def something we need now

Answer 10

the military is slowly converging over to the m4 yes I agree but in order to change a weapon /model/caliber it would cost the military triilions and also break hundreds of contracts that are signed with companies causing a breach in a contract leads to law suits it happend before in the marins with an optic called the simrad we started to puchase from another company they found out and sued the **** out of the corp.

Answer 11

Well we're using the M4, the M16 upgraded, but still you have a very valid point. There are other gun designs that are out there that have been created recently, just watch future weapons. But due to politics, it takes a long *** time to get a new gun into all of our troops' hands. The military has to test all of them and make a difficult decision and pick one, and then go through all kinds of processes, then gives a contract to the designer and gets them produced and into troops' hands. Its a long and difficult process, but there are people in charge of it and trying to get things done.

Answer 12

My ship had M14s; their main use was for shooting shot-lines during unreps.  And the M14 is much heavier than the M16.

And you are way off on the body armor issue.  The IBAs work fine; the main gripe was that the SAFI plates only covered the front and the back, but not the sides of a soldier.  If a soldier or Marine actually faces the enemy straight across, the SAFI plate is facing the enemy.  And if you are hinting about a lack of IBAs, my battalion had enough to equip each sailor twice.

> The "military-industrial complex" had nothing to do with the issue of getting the M16 into service.  The Army and Marine Corps were leery of a rifle using a smaller round and made of plastic; they were used to traditional rifles that fired a large round and had wooden furniture.

If anything, the military-industrial complex aiding in getting the M16 into service.  Robert McNamara wanted a rifle that was standard in any service branches and Air Force Chief of Staff LeMay wanted the M16 for his security personnel.

Answer 13

Guess Bob McNamara was really influential. But in defense of the weapon, any goober can be taught how to use it properly. I am a prime example of that. I went to tanker basic in the mid 1980's. Back then tankers were not taught how use the M-16 because it didn't fit in the M-60/A-3 tanks we were using.

When I got to my regular unit, the very first thing I did was fire for record on the M-16. I didn't even know how to load the darned thing. My unit administrator sat me down and showed me how operate the rifle, and walked me through zeroing it. After that I was able to fire "sharpshooter". That after all of five minutes instruction.

Yeah the basic design of the weapon is old. But if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Besides, there are many other weapons systems available to the grunts. I personally would love to fire the SAW. But as an old f**t who's been out for 15 years, that will probably never happen.