Re: M-16 Replacement (yet another Popular Mechanics article)

In a message dated 7/17/99 2:17:47 PM Central Daylight Time, 
yh728@victoria.tc.ca writes:

<< 
 Probably, but didn't the original (M16a1) version of the M16 have
severe
 teething problems as well? Jamming, breaking, etc? ISTR reading that in
 Vietnam troops would sometimes throw away their M16s if they could get
 some other weapon to replace it, or at least relegate the M16 to
secondary
 weapon...
  >>

Indeed every new weapon has teething problems. WHen the British army 
committed to the Lee-Metford bolt action magazine rifle, the army
pundits 
raised a storm. The soldiers would blaze all their ammo away with no
profit. 
The bullet was too small, the detachable magazine would surely get
dropped or 
lost. But the smaller bullet had much higher stopping power due to
velocity, 
the magazine didn't get lost when the soldier new he could blaze away
ten 
times without fumbline for ammo, and deliberate fire is the
infantryman's 
best friend, which infantrymen who live quickly learn.

The weapon will have problems, but it depends largely on the standard
5.56 
round and weapon feed for the basic rifle. The sights are pretty
derivative 
from what has gone before. The only unknown is the 20 mm system. I still

think it is a little light for the needs and the 40mm grenade is going
to 
stay around for a while in squad use. There is a new underbarrel weapon
with 
a large bore that fires oodles of flechettes for sling under the M-16
which 
looks promising for area suppression. The new toys are complicated, and
often 
you want the weapons you can bury in the mud and pick up and shoot
without a 
jam BUT, the bells and whistles might keep more troops alive in the long
run 
and that is the point.