Looks like you have a firm grasp of government logic!

The reason they have begun issuing all this stuff like kevlar and nightvision is that with recruiting numbers down, force multipliers have become necessary to field an effective army. They have also realized that equipment is cheaper than training an asset only to have him knocked out of action. If he does get knocked out of action, the equipment is transferrable to the next guy.

Switching an army's main battle rifle remains on of the most expensive enterprises a government can undertake. It's not just the cost of the new rifle, but the training and refitting of armorers, buying all the accessories that go with the new weapon (sights, grenade launchers, tactical lights, etc.), and getting rid of all the old rifles(I'll take one, thank you). Multiply that cost by every soldier, sailor, and airman who has a rifle, it gets expensive.

The M14 was outdated and outclassed before it was even introduced. The europeans and the Soviets were issuing rifles with stamped steel receivers with intermediate powered ammoversus expensive and heavy milled steel receivers andoverpowered ammolike the M14. The M14 is a great target rifle, but in even in that role, the AR-15 outshines it.

There are far bigger POS rifles around the worldthan the AR-15 ever was. The problem or perceived problem with the AR-15 is that it was testedby the end userrather than the manufacturer and it had some teething problems. Unfortunately, thebad reportsthat came back from some of the earlier issued AR-15sand the bad ammo that came with them have given them an undeserved bad reputation for at least 2 generations ofChairborne Rangers whomay have never even held and AR-15 much less owned one.

Col. Cooper, God rest his soul, I consider just about everything he says about handguns as near gospel, but I've never been a big fan of his ideas of riflery.

As for acceptance of AR-15 rifles that shoot 4 MOA- have you ever fired a M1 Garand with issue ball ammo? 4MOA is more of the rule than the exception. If there is such a rule as 4MOA acceptance of AR-15s, its probably on the very far edge statistically, and is not likely to be seen very often.

[Deleted by Admins]

Im sure they could build something much better for the sand enviroment that jams those things daily in Iraq. Id say Jessica Lynch dont care much for them either.

The above opinion seems to conflict with what you said later...

Please explain why it's still a "POS" after having had all the bugs worked out.

[Deleted by Admins]

Yep, the M16 had a few teething problems. Wrong powder was used at the beginning. The first M16 rifles did not have a chrome plated chamber and this causedsome problems with rust and failure to eject. Still have the letter from my brother asking for a commercial .22 cleaning rod and brush. The M16 rifles issued to his unit, the 2nd Bn, 7th Cav, 1st Cav Division, did not come with cleaning equipment. Sec Def and micro manager, McNamara claimed that they did not need cleaning. Additionally, the Army did not properly train troops in the care and maintenance of the M16 rifle: Indeed many troops got no such training at all.As a cost cutting measure, McNamara even refused to issue 30 round magazines to regular troops, only Special Forces got the 30 round magazines.

Subsequently, the M16 became a very accurate and reliable rifle. i have a friend who was working at Ft. Benning and was sent to RVN as part of a team whose mission it was to find out what the problems were with the M16 rifle.Reuban says that the infantry troops did not have all that many complaints about the M16 rifle. It was the ash and trash troops whodid most of the complaining.

The M193 ball round is very effective at ranges of 175 yards and less. That little projectile is arguably the mostdevastatingmilitary small arms bullet.The antis raised a lot of crap about the wounds caused by this bullet. The wound ballistics site is down or gone. Thissite talks about the 5.56mm South Africanround which is exactly the same as the US M193.

http://www.geocities.com/odjobman/r1r42.htm

Many of the problems that US troops currently face is because the US Army took the M60 machine gun away and replaced it with the 5.56mm SAW.5.56mmbullets will not blow a part a cinder block wall.

The history of the M16 rifle is part truth with a lot if misinformation and myth thrown in.

You have to decide which is the issue here, is it the 5.56mm Nato bullet that is the problem or is it the platform? the debate for the 5.56 is as old as eugene stoners first version of the ar-15 so I will not get into that.

The platform that the M-16/ar-15 is built on has alot of potential. A properly maintainenced AR will function great and be accurate out past 700 yds. In competition shooting matches with match ammo the AR-15 can make a good grouping at 1000 yards. Now keep in mind that those AR's are kept in better care and have better parts than those issued by the military. Remember that those M-16s are made by the lowest bidder. While the military does want to spend less money i dont buy the arguement over cost in replacing the existing system. The Fact is that the US military and the DoD have spent millions on searching for alternative rifles. For years the goal has been to achieve the OFW (objective force warrior system) in this the military has tested the xm-8, the xm-25 and the xm-29. Each had prblems and to my knowledge each has been almost entirely rejected by the US military. So the question I ask is does this sound like a government interested on only saving money? granted there are calls to be frugal but what do you expect with all the cuts in the defense budget? but still i refuse to believe that the m-16 remains only for that reason. Consider... the original M16 was the A1 variant. Since the A1'a have been replacedwith A2's by 1989 and have A3's and A4's today. Not to mention all the carbine and compact variants. They have replaced most if not all of their weapons with newer models so in that i feel that the Cost arguement is busted.

If you are agrueing against the 5.56 cartrage then you have to consider that it was a round developed back in the 1960's. Also remember that the first stoner rifle was 7.62 but was changed later to 5.56. The primary reason was that the 5.56/.223bullet had a flatter trajectory and have less recoil allowing it to be a more effective weapon in the hands of inexperienced privates. This also allowed them to maintain high rates of fire more accurately. Granted the round has always and will always have its critics, there is currently no caliber rifle on the market that does what the bullet was designed to do better. The 308/7.62 nato round is heavy, loud and has a harder recoil with can intimidate many soldiers and potential soldiers. On of the things that the instructors do when you first get introduced to the m-16 is fire it from several positions. On his neck, chin and crotch. He does this to show them that the recoil in minimal and will not hurt them. Try that with a 7.62... As far as it goes consider that the round is reaching the end of its life. If you look back on history the average life for a service cartrage in this country is about 40 years. Since 2002 the United States SOCOM has been experimenting with new weapon platforms (such as the rifles mentioned about) as well as new calibers like the 6.5mm grendel and the 6.8mm SPC. The problems with them come from not only cost but availability and logistics. The rounds did not exist priot to there military service so they would have to be built in great numbers by the few munition factories in this country.

with all this said, every combat rifle in our history has had some controversy. The M1 garand initially had gripes about its canadian origin. the rifle also had issues with the mechanismjamming and only carried 8 rounds with other rifles had 10-30 rounds. The M1 carbine was designed as PDW and was issuedin the front lines and the complaints existed overits range and lethality. The M-14 was a great weapon but if you look back at it, it too wasout of date considering that it was not an assualt rifle. (assualt rifle requires a pistol grip) ALSO consider that its length made CQB a problem. That is why it is only used by snipers today.

Bottom line. The AR-15designwill be with us for decades to comewith the new barretversion of the ar-15 that works in all conditions like a ak-47. The 5.56 nato round is also on its way out but it will take to time to finalize all the paper work and store large enough quantiites of a new round to make it feasible to switch all the weapons. But that is another benefit of the AR design. You and drop in a new upper reciever and in minutes have updated the rifle to any caliber thus proving its versatility. No other rifle can say that... But at all arguments aside at least we can still say that our rifles are american made. Choosing a foriegn rifle would present all kinds of logistical problems.

The nation we've got now isn't exactly the same one that gave us those weapons.

Just to clarify, it was not I who said the M16 is a POS. I have carried it into hostile environments and bet my life that it would work. I think it is a quality weapon and I am a big fan of the M193. I do prefer the AK platform for a battle rifle because it is the most reliable weapon I ever carried. The AK is crudely built, marginally accurate, and badly balanced. Oh yeah, it's ugly too.

I know there was a new rifle in the works before Iraq, the M6, I think. It is a modular weapon system that allows for configuration changes in the field with minimal tools. It was supposed to replace the M16 and the SAW, it also had a designated marksman configuration for use in urban sniping. It had a holographic sight and polymer frame. I thought the military was going to make the switch then, but I haven't heard anything about it in a long time. But I'm an old guy now and not exactly in the loop.