Hi 4Th,
I'm an "in the middle" Vet. Served from 1981 until 1991.
I was a Ranger 1st, then Air Force....Long story.
I went to Grenada, and I fired 12 shots total.
While in the Air Force, I went EVERYWHERE! I saw more shit than most Vietnam Vets, well, I guess that is subjective....
Seriously, In the Philippine Islands, I had no issues with my issue XM-177; that is the 11.5" version of the Colt Commando with the long flash suppressor and the collapsible stock. And that weapon got some real use.
Went to Saudi Arabia for G-1, saw no use at all, but fired often; I am proud to say that I expended many thousands of U.S. taxpayer dollars on ammo. Same weapon, since all of my deployments were TDY. Had some serious issues with short stroking. Learned quick to ditch the LSA and use graphite. I got really fast at breaking the weapon open and doing a quick brush, wipe and douse with dry lube. The dust gets into EVERYTHING!
Bottom line on the M-16 system:
1. Accurate as any issue MBR, and in most cases, more accurate than the soldier who operates it.
2. The Gas system just sucks. Very difficult to clean, and grows funky dirt everywhere. Also causes the bolt-carrier group to heat up very fast and very hot. Steel does not expand too much, but aluminum does.
3. The original M193 55gr. ammo works very well for anti-personnel. It tends to tumble when it hits a target, especially "fleshy tissue". SS109 is great for distance, and it penetrates well. For CQB it is just not as effective. Try this; shoot a watermelon at 100 meters, it will explode as only a melon can. Now do it again at 5 meters. Clean hole. This is a Jihadist at 100 meters, DOWN. This is a Jihadist at 5 meters, who just shot you back. The M-16 needs a bigger, heavier bullet. IMHO, something around 6.6mm and 105 grains. Same case size, same powder load.
4. Take a look at the Enfield L1A1; It has "sand cuts" on the sides of the bolt carrier to ensure that sand, dust and grit have somewhere to go. That rifle works well in these conditions. The Israelis didn't introduce this feature until after the war in 1967. If the M-16 bolt had "sand cuts" or some other similar feature, it would not have as many issues. Better yet, redesign the upper to be like the AR-180.....End of story.
5. If the diameter of the gas tube was increased to 5.56mm and a jag was issued to allow a soldier the ability to dunk the muzzle end o
f the barrel into a canteen cup and run the a jag up and down through the gas tube, there would be far fewer gas related issues. Better yet, change over to a captive piston design and eliminate all of the gas, heat, and fouling issues all at once.
6. I think a 17 inch barrel is the right length. I have no imperical data to support this. But I can hit targets at 500 meters, and knock holes through cinder blocks as well at that distance.
I like the M-16 system but it needs an overhaul.
Best wishes to all,
Bellson
