The levels of foolishness reached a new high when I found this gem, written in complete seriousness by a self-important commentator:
Now I really have no room to talk about combat or shooting in general because I am not fighting for my country nor have attended any [organized shooting events] (yet), but it should not be necessary to shoot someone more than once to put them out of the fight.
In my personal opinion I think that the military needs a new rifle.
There has been a push in many circles, military and civilian, to replace the 5.56x45mm cartridge used by the United States and throughout NATO and/or replace the AR15/M16 platform. The intelligence of such an opinion can be summed up by this commentator. At least this guy is honest enough to admit that such a notion is backed by people who probably do not know any better.
Let’s discuss why replacing the M16-series and the 5.56x45mm cartridge makes little sense. We’ll begin by looking at the rifle.
The “magic” gas piston. The M16/AR15 utilizes direct gas impingement, meaning that gas pressure is forced down a tube directly into the bolt carrier with no intervening piston. The beauty of this system is that it is simple and light weight. The claimed disadvantage, and a primary listed reason for replacement, is that fouling is deposited directly into the bolt carrier, thus the common complaint that the M16 “craps where it eats.”
This mythical “problem” exists in the minds of under-trained marksmen, usually soldiers who have been inadvertently taught to destroy firearms under a misguided premise of cleaning them.
All firearms burn propellant. Fouling (“carbon”) is destined to build up no matter the design. All gas operated systems utilize gas pressure to operate the mechanism and this fouling will accumulate somewhere. Keep this in mind the next time you maintain a M240 or M249 and inspect the gas regulator and piston.
In my experience this makes the M16/AR15 easier to maintain because the area of build up, directly behind the gas rings on the bolt inside the carrier, can be kept lubricated and the fouling more easily wiped off. Many piston designs advise the operator to avoid lubricating that primary area of fouling. Carbon is baked on and must be scraped to remove. Keep the rear of the bolt behind the gas rings in your M16 moistened with CLP or other proper lubricant like you’re supposed to and this fouling is easily wiped away.
The misinformed will opine that this isn’t possible in a desert environment, yet, as many vets have found out, CLP works just fine in the sand. The key is regular maintenance, something you’ll need to do no matter the lubricant choice. Also, there is no need to scrape away every last remnant of fouling. Improvised metal tools and picks remove the finish and cause damage. Wipe or brush away enough fouling so the mechanism continues to function. That’s all! If your drill sergeant/instructor made you scrape everything off he is/was a liar or a fool.
Instead of replacing perfectly-good rifles, a better improvement would be to upgrade existing M16A4s with free float tubes. This is merely a parts-swap and utilizes current rifles. Start by outfitting those rifles issued to qualified Squad Designated Marksmen (SDM). The inherent accuracy of rack-grade M16s is sufficient for all but the best Soldier-Marksmen. The problem of holding a zero due to the fact that the hand guard contacts the barrel would be eliminated (Funny that those crying for a new rifle never mention this fact. Then again, only a true marksman would notice such an issue.)
The true ridiculousness of those requesting new rifles is the fact that most of the suggested replacements are chambered in the same cartridge! Replacing the current-issue 5.56mm rifle with another 5.56mm rifle does nothing.
What about the cartridge, then? Maybe we should go to a 6.Xmm something or other. Failures to stop in the field are a common complaint here.
The sad, unspoken truth is that most members of the military are lousy marksmen. Shot placement is more important than anything equipment related and a trip to any military range will demonstrate this isn’t being sufficiently addressed. DOD personnel, regardless of their branch, rarely have the marksmanship chops for cartridge choice to ever matter.
Add in the fact that the logistics of changing chamberings are nightmarish and any sensible person has to wonder what the point is. A more realistic improvement would be to make heavy 5.56mm projectiles a standard issue load. All our current 5.56 chambered weapons sport 1:7 twists and will stabilize them. This gives performance that approaches typical 6.8mm loadings and current ammunition remains usable.
Consider that the Mk262 cartridge launches a 77 grain bullet with a high ballistic coefficient at around 2800 feet per second. The 6.8x43mm SPC starts a 115 grain bullet out at around 2500 fps from the same length of barrel. One can demonstrate that the 6.8 is better and it has merit, however, once the logistical costs and issues and weighed in, it makes no sense to do so just to gain 38 grains of bullet and lose around 300 fps.)
The only real reasons to change rifles and ammunition are:
- Create a new contract for a different supplier.
- Satisfy gun magazines by providing filler content
None of these things improve issue equipment that is already more than satisfactory. Learn how to shoot what you have instead of asking for new toys!
chockblock
Nov 29, 2008 @ 02:26:24
the gas piston is better in that it keeps firing despite fouling. I was a M-249 gunner for a few years. Those damn Saws would jam form mechnical problems, but fouling? only one with blanks.
CLP attracks sand like crazy. There are better ones on the market, but the Army will not change. their answer? more clp. That just causes more sand to get in.
A pistion is better, but the best answer is a new upper reciever. Drop’em in. Pistion would be best, but any improved upper will do.
Why buy a whole new rifle when upper could be had for a song (in govt. contracting terms anyway).
Thanks for the link.
LikeLike
John Buol
Nov 29, 2008 @ 14:12:50
>> the gas piston is better in that it keeps firing despite fouling.
I keep hearing this story, that the AR-15 is doomed to fail because of excessive fouling.
Consider the fact that USAR shooting team members are often issued more ammo per year than six members of a Special Forces ‘A’ team combined (AC ODA/ODB, See DA Pam 350–38, Chapter 12.)
Click to access p350_38.pdf
Consider also that most USAR shooting team members follow the maintenance advice given by ArmaLite, the company that employed Eugene Stoner when he invented the AR-15. See ArmaLite, Inc., TECHNICAL NOTE 29, RIFLE CLEANING
Click to access Tech%20Notes%5CTech%20Note%2029,%20Rifle%20Cleaning,%2099.04.pdf
I have removed the bolt from the carrier of my issue M16A2 and A4 for cleaning exactly three times each since I received them in 2005. Despite the fact that I am cleaning even less often than Armalite recommends I have yet to have a stoppage thousands of rounds later. Fellow shooting team members, both Combat and Service Rifle, mirror my experience.
Clear it, pull out the carrier, wipe it and the insides of the receiver out with a rag and brush, relube as per the TM and reassemble. Two minutes, DONE!
>> CLP attracts sand like crazy. There are better ones on the market,
I keep hearing about the magical “CLP sand magnet”, where sand throws itself at every weapon cursed with Breakfree. Yet, every marksman with a combat tour I’ve interviewed has experienced the same thing I have: Regular (at least daily) maintenance is required regardless of weapon or lubricant type. Maintenance need only take one to two minutes as a quick wipe down will do.
There are other products available that work well (maybe even better), but CLP/Breakfree is fine. In fact, every vet I’ve talked to that had other lubricants available ultimately chose to switch back to CLP and was satisfied with that choice.
A number of shooting team members have been deployed overseas and saw combat, yet not a single one of them experienced any of these issues. Why is it that truly skillful, champion marksmen with combat tours are not seeing all these claimed problems?
LikeLike
Desert_Donkey
Dec 02, 2008 @ 14:07:18
I really don’t see what all the fuss is about; the M-4 and current incarnation of the M-16 are about as good as they can be after over 40 years of experience and improvements.
As far as maintenance in the desert, a small shaving brush is about all you need to get rid of the dust in those pesky cracks and crevices. I think a lot of the problem with the use of CLP is the age-old habit of completely drenching the bolt and carrier with copious (and completely unnecessary) amounts of lube. The weapon doesn’t need that much lube to run, and if you follow the lube order laid out by the TM, you’ll find that the rifle works just fine without being drowned.
Why not let’s be happy with what we have instead of casting about for miraculous solutions to non-existent problems?
LikeLike
tom
Dec 07, 2008 @ 23:26:15
I like my personal toys in Grendel and .223 Ackley Improved, but as is, it’s an easily maintainable platform with all the logistics in the world behind it and I once culled a 800lb 4 legger with a 5.56mm round on a hunting trip. If you’re going to spend money, put ACOGS on all of them. It would do more good on the real world battlefield.
If you have to change calibers for uppers, I suggest Grendel, purely out of selfish brass availability issues and that I like the accuracy of the cartridge more.
Adding an extra gas piston (the bolt in a Stoner rifle is a piston) plus a long actuating rod is possibly the stupidest thing anybody has ever thought of in weapon development.
LikeLike
Charlie Towns
Mar 13, 2009 @ 08:50:38
“What about the cartridge, then? Maybe we should go to a 6.Xmm something or other. Failures to stop in the field are a common complaint here.
The sad, unspoken truth is that most members of the military are lousy marksmen. Shot placement is more important than anything equipment related and a trip to any military range will demonstrate this isn’t being sufficiently addressed.”
–John Buol
I will not disagree with you that alot of service members need to learn to shoot better. The facts are the fact however. So what should be done, just say “well it is because they can not shoot”, and keep sending them out the gate with a tiny 5.56 MM round which in hunting is only considered good for varmint hunting??
That is right even the hunting community says that the .223 (5.56MM) is to small to shoot an animal much larger than a prairie dog. Wait don’t tell me, “the whole hunting community is wrong”? There are a number of stories from both wars where soldiers have to shoot the enemy a number of times because 5.56 just does not get it done. Good shots or bad shots if we give them a round larger than 5.56 MM these stories are going to go down. I have personally spoken to one of my infantry friends who described how he shot a man across a room twice in the chest with an M-4. It took a third head shot to bring him down. Now you could say “well he should have shot in through the heart the first time.” The facts are that when you are all hopped up on adrenaline, the rush of kicking in a door and rushing into a building you are going to have a hard time being accurate, even if you are a good target shooter on the range.
When I was in Iraq in 2006 I saw a number of soldiers who were assigned an M-14. When I ask what the reason for this was, the answer was that at the check points they wanted soldiers with this weapon because the 5.56 MM bullet was not big enough to go through the cars and stop would be bombers. I don’t think that adding a heavier bullet to a tiny 5.56 MM (again a varmint gun in the civilian side) will stop this problem.
My solution lets get NATO and ourselves off this tiny round. Bring the M-14 back army wide. Create a new synthetic stock for it. I heard many stories about 5.56 not stopping people, never heard it about a 7.62 MM (M-14 round). To my knowledge the M-14 does not have the jamming problems that the M-16 has. In fact in Vietnam some units did not want to switch because of the jamming issue.
It is easy to make analytical and egg head arguments sitting on the other side of a computer screen on what should work. It is easy to say “well if they were better shots”. The soldiers do not have this luxury. They must operate with what training they have had. They must operate with a adrenaline filled system not knowing what is on the other side of that door they are about to kick in. The more lead you throw at them the greater the chance you will stop them the first time.
5.56 MM is just to small
LikeLike
BigR
Jun 07, 2009 @ 14:17:14
Too bad the Geneva Convention screws our Armed Forces. Hell, it’ll take a couple rounds with whatever you got with ball ammo. Police officers can carry nasty rounds that are meant to fragment and stop their own citizens, but our armed forces shoots crap you wouldn’t shoot at a prarie dog. As far as the hunting community goes, yes, a .223 is more of a varmint round, however it is a legal caliber to take a deer or other larger game. I do believe a 6.8 or 6.5 would give better knock down power, both will require alot of kinks to be worked out. I know you can’t go against the GC, but HP fragmenting rounds would fix all issues.
LikeLike