Army Equipment, lesson 1: Why the M-16 is so bad

[jmowreader]

Think back to Jessica Lynch's ambush: She tried to fire her weapon; it jammed.

Jammed M-16s are a fact of life in the Army. It's happened to all of us. For most of us, it happened when someone wasn't trying to kill us. For others, like the members of the 504th Maintenance Company, that wasn't the case.

So what went wrong?

Problem 1: lubrication. The military's standard small arms lubricant is called CLP--means Cleaner, Lubricant and Protectant. It goes by the commercial name Break-Free. The military wanted one product to maintain its weapons--something that would both clean them and lubricate them. This stuff kinda works. And it kinda doesn't work.

As far as cleaning...there is a reason most GIs own a can of WD-40 and a can of carburetor cleaner. The army standard for a "clean" weapon is so high that there's no way an oily product can meet it. (A weapon is "clean" when you can pass a patch through the bore and have it come out white.) And Break-Free is definitely oily. I don't think it works very well on carbon deposits either. My preference is for Hoppe's Number 9 if I can get it or the sink in the broom closet if there's no Hoppe's around. Washing the rifle in the hottest water you can find, then spraying it with WD-40, works better on carbon than Break-Free does. Many infantry units have parts cleaning tanks in their arms rooms; these are excellent. Carburetor cleaner works very well but screws up the floor in the arms room area. Unless you are bigger than the armorer, don't use this.

Break-Free is an okay lubricant if you know how to use it. Most soldiers don't. This product has Teflon in it. Teflon is held in suspension in oil. (Keep that in mind if you decide to buy a Teflon-based oil treatment for your car.) The only way to get the Teflon up so it will do what you need is to shake the container vigorously. When the Break-Free turns black, it's working. Most troops just squeeze a little of this stuff onto a patch and swab the rifle with it without shaking the bottle, or they squeeze it onto their rifles and work it around with their fingers without shaking the bottle. Hint: if the lubricant is yellow, it's not going to work. Another problem: even if you do shake the bottle, you still leave an oily film on the rifle. Oil attracts sand. The best lube in any environment is one where the carrier evaporates. My favorite M-16 lube is Dri-Slide. The new Militec is supposed to be excellent too--this is the choice of the new generation of soldier. Both of these products deposit a film of molybdenum sulfide on the treated surface.

Another big, and permanent, problem with the M-16 is the ammo they use. The M-16 was designed around Improved Military Rifle (IMR) powder. When the M-16 and its small round came out, the US threatened NATO with withdrawal if ball powder (which is used in artillery) was not in the 5.56mm round. Fine with them; if you design for ball powder, your rifle will work. And most every other country's 5.56mm rifle does work.

The Army finally solved the problem for at least some troops. They introduced the M-4 carbine. It is a blank-sheet design that acknowledges two realities: ball powder and CLP are not going away. It's also smaller and lighter than the M-16 and is as accurate at the ranges you're likely to need to shoot someone as the M-16 is. And you can hang a grenade launcher from it! Its only problem is that there aren't enough to go around.

[criticalmass]

1. CLP vs. Dry Lubricant in the Persian Gulf

Started a thread on the lube question the other day, but can't find it now. Some links:

Wrong Lubricant, Jammed Weapons, Dead Soldiers

Jammed Weapons Discussion

The Army's sticky lubricant woes

[Undemcided]

2. Probably a combination of both

Since they obviously weren’t supposed to be in combat I would guess that Jessica’s unit wasn’t all that diligent about keeping their weapons clean. :shrug:

[benburch]

4. Lack of ammo for live fire exercise...

There was a story back in 2000 that the Army was short of many forms of ammo, including that used in the M-16, and was suspending regular live-fire exercises.

I cannot seem to find that story just now, but I do recall it.

We sent soldiers into combat who had not fired their weapons in months!

-Ben

[sweetheart]

3. why not use an AK-47?

It seems like the ammo is plentiful in the zones where one might need it, lightening the supply chain... and the weapon has, from what i understand, a much better track record.

Is there not an H&K weapon better than an M16? In reading the "rogue warrior" series by marchenko (sp?), he mentions the H&K weapon as the preferred seal team 6 shot... ?

[Fixated]

5. .....

The M16 is easier to mass produce. And AKs aren't as accurate, I believe.

But at least the M16A1 was done away with.

[madddog]

6. The M16 is NOT a POS

Most of the early problems with the M16 were due to MacNamara's decision to drop the chrome lined bore from Stoner's original design...a cost saving measure that in hindsight was idiotic: in the humid climate of vietnam, it allowed the bore/chamber to get rusty. The other problem was with a paricularly dirty burning powder used in the original load for the weapon. Couple that with fairly unclear cleaning/maint. routines with the newly deployed rifles, and you had a recipe for problems. After about 2 years, they went back to chrome lining the bores, and switched powders. They instructed the troops as to how to maintain them, and you now have a VERY accurate, reliable weapon.

The AK is a wonderfully rugged design, and will survive much rougher treatment in terms of maint. than the M16, which is why it's a favorite of guerilla movements around the world, but it is nowhere near as accurate. Since 1974, the Russians/East Block countries swithced to the ak 74, which uses the same design, but a smaller caliber bullet.

The M4 and other weapons the U.S. military currently issue is the same basic rifle as the M16, but with a shorter barrel and a different stock...but the internals are the same. There is nothing inherently wrong with the design, and it still works today, and is still deployed today. In every picture you see of a soldier in Iraq, if he's not carrying a SAW or an M-60, what you see is a variation of an M16, like the M4 or CAR. (unless it's a sniper rifle).

The H&K you are referring to is most likely the MP5, which is considered a submachine gun, not a rifle. Although the DEA uses a .223 version, most of them around in law enforcement are 9mm. The US uses a 10mm (.40) version that is unique around the world, as far as I know. It is a very short firearm, used mostly for CQB/hostage rescue kind of stuff.

If anyone is interesested, pop over to the Israali special forces site and have a read..there is some very good info there. I'd post a link, but I'm too lazy lol. Google it, it's easy to find.

[OldSoldier]

7. Relying on the enemy for supply is a bad idea

I wouldn't mind a 5.56mm Kalashnikov action rifle, but not a rifle that didn't use ammo that's already in the supply channel.

Any H&K is better than an M-16. The G-3 is exceptional. It's also expensive.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

8. The FAL beats the G-3 as a 'grunt gun'

It is simpler to clean, simpler to maintain.

[Character Assassin]

9. The M14 beats 'em all. Bring it back.

[benburch]

10. Amen.

I'd love to own an M-14.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

11. Bah

The FAL is a much better military rifle than the M-14.

The US should have adopted it. Probably would have adopted it if they didnt cheat during the trials.

If it had been adopted we might not have went to the M-16.