

How Reliable Is the M-16 Rifle? - tokenadult
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/how-reliable-is-the-m-16-rifle/

======
kwantam
Well, not as reliable as the Kalashnikovs. But literally no other autoloading
small arm ever created is.

The Kalashnikov is a masterful design. It is simple, easy and cheap to
manufacture by any of a number of processes (stamping, milling, forging), and
literally can be buried in mud for days and remain operational. Sure, it's not
as accurate as the AR platform (e.g., M-4, M-16), but what good does that do
you when your gun doesn't work?

In fairness to the AR, it is a highly advanced, very reliable weapon when
properly maintained. Its early reputation for failures can really be blamed on
the Army's failure to properly train the cleaning processes or issue
appropriate cleaning tools. With good cleaning, it's a marvellous design. The
Kalashnikov, on the other hand, can be thrown at a raw conscript and will
remain operational basically no matter what.

Interestingly, this dichotomy goes back much further. Prior to the AK there
was a short run of the SKS (mostly adopted by China later, and also designed
by Kalashnikov), and before that the (in)famous workhorse of both the Czar and
the Glorious Revolution, the Mosin-Nagant. Compare this to the weapons used by
the US over this period, viz., the Krag, Springfield, and M1 Garand---
especially the latter!

Tangentially, it's quite impressive to consider that, in an era of bolt action
infantry rifles (the Brits, Germans, French, Russians, and Italians had the
Enfield, K98K, MAS-36, Mosin-Nagant, and Carcano, respectively), the US led
the way towards modern rifles with the Garand. Helluva gun, and fun as hell to
shoot.

~~~
gonzo
You forgot the M-14, which is a much-improved (far more accurate, faster to
reload, higher capacity per reload), variant on the M-1 Garand.

Having shot all three (I own a National Match M-1, a NM M1A (the civilian
(non-auto) variant of the M-14) and "more than one" AR-15), I can tell you
that I vastly prefer the M1A.

The only time I ever had the M-1 'jam' was when it suffered a round of .308
through it during a match, resulting in an 'X', but also a failure to extract.
I signaled a malfunction, the armorer came over, checked with me (3X) that the
round had gone downrange, then placed the butt of the rifle against the
ground, and stomped on the operating handle with his boot. The rifle extracted
the (now fire-formed straight (no neck) .308 brass, and chambered a new round.

I was allowed to finish my string.

I've never had the M1A jam, but it probably only has 10,000 rounds through it
(and yes, it was new when my father (who used to shoot classified as
'Distinguished') purchased it in the early 60s.)

The AR15s, (Colts, all) are, by any comparison, toys.

These days I shoot a Model 70 Winchester in .308 (it and the Garand were both
my grandfather's.)

Since this is HN:

the M-14/M1A is like Lisp, elegant, but accessible only to a few.

the M1 Garand is like 'C', everybody's ancestors used one, but few know how to
use it.

The M-16/AR15 is like Perl, cheap, but prone to failure.

The AK-47 is like PHP. Even the retards can make one work.

~~~
bwhite
If the M1 Garand is C, the M14 has to be C++: similar in many respects but
with better (ammo) encapsulation. Heh.

~~~
Zak
It's a much cleaner design than that. Objective C or maybe D.

------
kevinpet
Failure to extract is remedied by the chrome plated chamber in the A2 and
later variants (i.e. everything but the early vietnam war variants). I have
seen it once on the range (not my rifle, nor the Marine I was coaching), but
I've never seen it necessary to use a cleaning rod to extra -- pulling on the
charging handle while banging the butt on the deck solved the problem.

The modern M4 probably would have been the perfect rifle for Vietnam. The
rifle and ammunition are light, which is important when you don't have a truck
near by. Urban combat where quick lethality is important wasn't as common. The
chromed chamber eliminates the rust problem.

A lot of those factors have changed, but I still read most of these stories as
"the grass is always greener".

How many soldiers have died due to an M16 not killing the enemy fast enough?
How many soldiers would die from being less familiar with the weapon during
the transition period? Would the weapon chosen as a replacement actually be
the best for the job, or would the choice be based on which defense contractor
is in a state with a senator on the panel who will be ignoring the military's
recommendation?

The "it's not a real rifle, it doesn't shoot big enough ammunition, it can't
be used as an effective club" arguments sound a lot like traditional RDBMS
fans saying that key value stores are useless because they can't guarantee
foreign key constraints, or, maybe more appropriately, it's like someone
rejecting an effective approximation algorithm because it has an exponential
worst case runtime. Life, even war, is not a James Bond movie. Of course
special forces uses different equipment -- they have a different mission. If
you optimize for the usual case, you may be de-optimizing for the usual case.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
_How many soldiers have died due to an M16 not killing the enemy fast enough?
How many soldiers would die from being less familiar with the weapon during
the transition period? Would the weapon chosen as a replacement actually be
the best for the job, or would the choice be based on which defense contractor
is in a state with a senator on the panel who will be ignoring the military's
recommendation?_

Don't they put out a tender, get a sample of weapons and have 100 soldiers do
test firings, range events and war games using those weapons? How can the
senator manipulate that, you try the things first, if they're not better than
what you've got then don't buy them. If it's better but only in limited
conditions then can't you buy some and only use them in those limited
conditions? Is military procurement really that broken.

~~~
ebrenes
It would depend on the particular tests they are allowed to undergo. For
example, it's been stated that the M16 needs to be properly cleaned, so any
test that would emphasis taking a pristine sample and shooting would not
produce adverse results and probably make the gun place highly due to its
better accuracy.

However, were the trials to include sullying the rifle, banging it against
something, throwing it on the ground repeatedly, etc. What would the results
be then?

As another poster mentioned, sometimes in life (and especially in combat I
would assume) shit happens, and you need a gun to fire then, not when it's all
nice and clean.

So it's very easy to game the system, especially if the war games include
strictly enforcing weapon maintenance which might not be the case in actual
combat.

------
slapshot
I'm wondering whose bread is getting buttered here? What new weapons platforms
are competing for Army dollars, and which one solves the reliability
"problem"? Seems like this is the sort of article that comes out of a press
junket to a wide-open rifle range with lots of new toys for a reporter to play
with.

~~~
Zak
M-16 bashing has been a popular sport since the rifle was introduced. Many (me
included) feel the heavier, more rugged and far moe powerful M-14 was a better
weapon. That said, the worst problems of the early M-16 were corrected long
ago, and the current version isn't especially unreliable compared to other
modern military rifles.

------
ars
I though that not killing your enemy is actually a strategic decision, not a
flaw.

If you kill someone, your remove one person from the battle, but if you injure
them you remove two - the injured, and someone to help. And you use up
resources of the enemy for medical treatment.

You also look better from a PR point of view, and once the war is over they
don't hate you as much.

~~~
knv
I can confirm that. I have heard the same logic from War Veterans (Iran/Iraq).
During the war Iran had 2 kinds of rifles AK-47 for IRGC and HK G-3 for Army.
G-3 was notorious for its ability to kill in 1 shot in torso which removed one
enemy soldier from battlefield while AK-47 only caused injuries which in turn
made a bigger tax on enemy manpower and logistics during an operation.

------
tezza
Rifle preference aside, surely there are other issues to be addressing first,
esp on HN?

Here in the UK there is a shortage of Helicopters to send to Afganistan
because of a failed _operating system re-implementation_.

If the money was saved on these projects, perhaps service men/women could
choose a better rifle too.

\----------

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/20/chinook_hc3_cockup_f...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/20/chinook_hc3_cockup_finally_resolved_turkeys_fly_at_last/)

And further::

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/14/nimrod_mra4_prod_var...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/14/nimrod_mra4_prod_variant_first_flight/)

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/puma_refurb_comment/>

------
smhinsey
Wow, at first I thought this might be something out of the NYT archives. These
sorts of discussions were being had when it was first introduced in Vietnam,
as mentioned by the author. It's stunning that this type of concern is still
present in something that's been in use for more than 40 years.

Very interesting post.

~~~
jrockway
I was thinking the same thing.

Interestingly, it amuses me that government incompetence is preventing people
from being killed.

------
ars
Part 2:
[http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/the-m-16-argument-...](http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/the-m-16-argument-
heats-up-again/)

------
steve19
The controversy is just media and political hype. I recently wrote a blog post
debunking it.

To sum it up: The M4 works fine when operated under the Army guidelines. It is
a rifle, not a machine gun.

Trying to use a rifle like a machine gun is like trying to do Final Cut Pro
editing on a iBook G3 laptop ... it ain't going to work well - but don't blame
Apple.

[http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/10/13/the-truth-
behi...](http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/10/13/the-truth-behind-the-
recent-m4-controversy/)

~~~
Zak
I have to disagree. Weapons soldiers expect to rely on every day should be
overengineered such that they continue to function when intentionally
mistreated. The M-14 was. The M-16 and its variants are not.

~~~
steve19
Zak, you did not read, or maybe understand, my comment. A rifle != machine
gun. Physics sucks but there is nothing that can be done about it.

You cannot fire a gun constantly. The barrel will eventually heat up to near
melting point, then explode when a round is fired.

Machine guns have heavy profile barrels (ie. really thick) and can be replaced
quickly. Machine gun teams carry spare barrels for this purpose.

------
Adam503
I would think the military would be about due for a new generation of rifles
for the troops.

------
Shamiq
Tangential:

Are weapons manufacturers as "evil" as the people behind
<http://www.swoopo.com/> ? (ie taking advantage of base human instincts and
game theory for profit -- substantial profit).

