Why does the debate persist? Critics of the current weapon system argue that it puts a solider or Marine at risk and makes him less effective than he could be. The two supposed reasons? Reliability and caliber.
The reliability question stems from the unique design of the M16/M4. When the rifle fires, a portion of the gas from the round travels back in a tube and cycles the weapon (ejects the spent shell casing, loads a new round, etc.). The problem, critics argue, is that the gas directly interacts with the mechanics of firearm, allowing it to become fouled over time, especially without thorough, consistent maintenance or when used in sandy and dirty regions, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Alternative weapon systems, such as the AK-47 family of assault rifles, have the gas drive a piston to cycle the weapon, alleviating the issue of a malfunction due to debris in the gas.
The caliber question is an age-old debate for military and gun lovers alike. Caliber is a measurement of a firearm's interior barrel diameter as well as the diameter of the bullet when it's facing you. It is sometimes measured in inches (e.g., .45) and, especially in the military, in millimeters (e.g., 9mm). In the case of the M16/M4, the caliber is 5.56 mm (or .223 in inches). That sounds tiny if you have ever shot a .22 rifle, but remember, the cartridge propelling the M16/M4 bullet is much more powerful than what you used on the summer camp range. Critics say the current 5.56 mm round is too small, doesn't offer effective "stopping power" -- think of putting a big hole in your enemy and knocking him down -- and is a bad choice for long-range shooting.
Proponents of the current round say the argument was won a long time ago, when an intermediate cartridge with a small caliber was shown to be more than adequate for most modern military engagements. Besides, they say, more powerful weapons are carried by others in military units for when they are needed (note: recently the Army increased the number of higher-caliber rifle toting squad-designated marksmen from one in nine men, a squad, to two per squad according to an Army Times article).
So, back to the recent story. First, the author's credentials. Can he be trusted to know what he is talking about?
So far this year, the photographer Tyler Hicks and I have spent roughly three months in the field in Afghanistan with American troops, many of whom are engaged in some of the most regular and intensive fighting of the war. As part of our work, we have been observing rifle performance and querying soldiers and Marines about their experiences in combat with what is arguably the most important piece of equipment they carry.
So what did the author find?
Simply put, in observations in many firefights in harsh conditions, and in the experiences of Army and Marine grunts queried this year, the issue of rifle reliability seems much less pressing than it has appeared in accounts of widespread worries about or dislike of the M-4 and M-16.This informal finding lines up with previous personal conversations with two former Marines and a former soldier who all stated that their M16s were reliable and that the only issues were usually the result of a Marine or soldier not properly caring for his weapon.
...
At War, for now, will draw no larger conclusions than this: Whatever the merits of the concerns about the M-4 and the M-16, on the matter of latter-day reliability, the complaints that have boomed on the Web feel out of proportion to what can be documented in the field, and may well be overstated, even hyped.
Still, some changes improve the old war horse
The good news for those in the field is that while a replacement rifle/carbine is most likely many years away, there are already changes in place that should improve what they have (mostly the M4). Two prominent updates include:
- A more reliable magazine. Last December, the Army announced an improved 30-round magazine for the M16/M4 that "reduces the risk of magazine-related stoppages by more than 50 percent compared to the older magazine variants." At the time of the release, more than 500,000 were supposedly in the hands of deployed troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- A higher-performance round. The basic rifle round, or cartridge, has finally been updated. Yes, it's obviously still 5.56 mm, but according to a US Army press release, the new round's features "include improved hard-target capability, more dependable, consistent performance at all distances, improved accuracy, reduced muzzle flash and a higher velocity." And, what's more, it weighs the same and is even environmentally friendly. Win-win-win. For those who still want to debate caliber, the release notes the new round "performed better than current 7.62mm ball ammunition against certain types of targets, blurring the performance differences that previously separated the two rounds." It's going out to soldiers this summer in Afghanistan, so real-world field reports should be in soon.
Despite the New York Times report and these updates, M16/M4 critics will never be satisfied. And as soon as a new rifle/carbine is selected, no matter the mechanics or the caliber, it's likely a new debate will take shape. Perhaps it will take the form of the criticism of the XM8 design: some of those against it said it looked like a plastic toy (ironically, similar to one of the reactions to the M16 when first introduced during Vietnam). The reality is that there's no way the US military will ever field a main rifle/carbine that satisfies everyone, from soldiers in the field to Internet pundits.
