Firearms failure

Today is Memorial Day, a day to remember those who gave everything for our country. This post covers a topic that upsets me quickly. Our standard issue rifle in the military is the M4, a shorten version of the M16A2. It uses the standard NATO 5.56x45 mm ammunition or .223 Remington. This rifle is controversial for several reasons.

1. The lack of kill force from the smaller .22 bullet is a problem if the bullet travels at subsonic velocities.
2. Smaller mechanical components often fail to move causing the rifle to jam during combat in dirty conditions
3. Direct-impingement gas operation causes premature aging of the rifle's mechanical components due to excessive heat and fouling from direct exposure to the barrel.

When the initial M16s were given to soldiers in Vietnam, the weapons were a disaster. The inherent flaws mentioned above made the initial design useless to a soldier as they constantly jammed in the hot, humid jungles. After significant redesign (and change in powder), the rifle then became somewhat useful. Fast forward to the 1980's and beyond with the newer updated versions of the M16XX, the A2, A3 and A4. The newer incarnations limited the issues listed above through engineering improvements, but still it is a flawed design in nature. No other current assault rifle uses the direct-impingement system. It is a failed design and should be replaced with a short stroke or long stroke gas operating system. The internal moving parts also should have greater clearances preventing the rifle from jamming due to contamination.

The longer 20 inch barrel makes the NATO 5.56x45 mm ammo useful on the battlefield, but to what degree is still a topic of hot debate. Other countries use this round for their troops, thus it has validity as a reliable munition. Decreasing the barrel to 14.5 inches as in the M4, the velocity decreases to the point it is ineffective. This article reveals the inadequacies of the M4 in our current Afghanistan conflict. The Army even admits at long range,

But a U.S. Army study found that the 5.56 mm bullets fired from M-4s don't retain enough velocity at distances greater than 1,000 feet (300 meters) to kill an adversary. In hilly regions of Afghanistan, NATO and insurgent forces are often 2,000 to 2,500 feet (600-800 meters) apart.

At the end of the article, the expert's opinion rings true,

Martin Fackler, a ballistics expert, also defended the 5.56 mm round, blaming the M-4s inadequate performance on its short barrel, which makes it easier for soldiers to scramble out of modern armored vehicles.

"Unfortunately weapon engineers shortened the M-16's barrel to irrational lengths," Fackler said. "It was meant for a 20-inch barrel. What they've done by cutting the barrel to 14.5 inches is that they've lost a lot of velocity."

When a soldier's rifle fails, he is defenseless. Not only does he become an easy target, others in his company are easier targets for the enemy. This is a serious problem.

There is an easy, intermediate solution. Immediately replace the issued M4 with the M16A4 and it would not cause a large ordinance supply problem. It seems politics rule the day and our soldiers are paying with their lives. Since the M16 was not replaced years ago, it demonstrates who dominates our modern military, the military industrial complex.