Over the past few months, a "TEST" of various replacements for the M16 class of weapons against the M16 (actually the M4 variant) itself have floated around the internet. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003908.html
The moral of this article is that the M4 sucks and jams more then anything else. If you read the article, you will find that the circumstances of these tests were extreme and all the weapons failed, but the M4 failed, umm, worst.
History of the M16...
This weapon was a derivative of a the Ar10 weapon Eugene Stoner designed in the 1954 as a potential replacement for the M1 Garand. It's competition was the FN-Fal and the M14. Varying accounts of the tests have been written and blame has been pushed all around, but basically, one of the Ar10's barrels blew up and the Army rejected this weapon. In 1957, the Army was conducting research into 22 caliber weapons; which eventually turned into the 5.56 NATO we all know of today. One of the generals in charge of this, had Armalite enter a rifle, which was basically a scaled down AR10, called the AR15. Well, after some testing, guess what? one of the Ar15's barrels blew up and after some more trials and debates, the AR15 was rejected in 1960. The Army simply did not want this weapon.
General Curtis LeMay, of the U.S. Air Force went ahead and orders about 8500 of the weapons for the Air Force, but was overruled by Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense. After more drama and headaches, McNamara forced the Army and Air Force to both use this weapon and cancelled the M14. By the way, McNamara also forced the Navy and Air Force into the F111 fighter, which was unable to fight its way out of anything and ended up being a bomber/recon platform (the Navy ended up dropping the F111 before any were accepted). The Army required changes to the Ar15, now called the M16, which included a forward assist which complicated the design. We all have heard the stories about jams from Vietnam.
Well, Blame McNamara. He forced the Army, Air Force, and eventually Marines into owning this pig. The 5.56 round is sufficient..barely. Story after story have returned from Vietnam, Iraq, Bosnia and other places that tell that multiple shots have been required to drop an enemy. Sure, the troops can carry more ammo then every before because the gun is light and so is the ammo, but if it takes three shots to do what a 308 can do in one, where is the savings value? If many states will not allow you to hunt a 100 to 15o pound deer with a 5.56/223 Rem because there is not enough power to humanely kill the animal, then why are we using it on 150 to 250 pound enemy combatants that may also be wearing body armor?
In my opinion our troops have always deserved a better weapons platform then the one Stoner designed. It requires constant care, constant. While accurate, it is no more so then many other designs that could have been used. While reliable with constant care, it is much less reliable then many other systems available. Hopefully, the replacements chosen for the M16 series of weapons will be superior in every way, shape and form. Our troops deserve it.
