

The M-16 Argument Heats Up, Again - ars
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/the-m-16-argument-heats-up-again/

======
anelson
I'm pretty skeptical of accounts like these. With proper maintenance, the
AR-15 system (upon which the M-4 and M-16 are based) can be very reliable. The
direct impingement gas system does increase fouling, but as long as you keep
the rifle properly maintained it's not clear this translates into decreased
reliability.

I think a lot of the stopping power complaints would be relieved by one of the
following not-at-all-realistic changes:

1\. Issue the M193 5.56 round to units fielding the M4 carbine. The M855's
heavier and more complex bullet has been shown to fragment less reliably at
the sort of velocities the M4's shorter barrel can achieve. Since the 5.56 FMJ
round's lethality is tied to fragmentation more than punching big holes, this
could fix many of the failure-to-stop issues

2\. Back out of the damn Hague Convention and issue hollow point ammunition to
our military forces. Hornady TAP law enforcement ammo is some pretty nasty
shit, even out of a poodle shooter like the M4. Not as effective against body
armor, but much more effective against flesh. Our LEOs and civilian
contractors use this ammo; why not our military forces?

