In search of the next US military rifle

I note, via Military.com, that the US Army's invited prospective participants in its Improved Carbine competition to test their weapons with the recently-upgraded current service ammunition. This doesn't preclude anyone from offering a weapon in a different caliber; it simply means those offering 5.56x45mm. weapons can ensure that their firearms operate correctly with the current generation of military ammunition. Not a bad idea.

I find myself on the horns of a dilemma when I think about military rifles. I've seen combat myself, and I have some pretty well-developed ideas about what's needed in a combat weapon; but I'm also aware that one can be blinded by one's own experience, to the point where one may lose sight of reality. (A good example occurred recently, when the US Army announced it had dropped bayonet training from its curriculum. Many veterans fumed angrily about this 'backward step' - oblivious to the fact that very careful, very detailed research had shown that troops used entrenching tools more often in combat than they did bayonets! [Clearly, the veterans didn't 'dig it' . . . ;-) ] The Army replaced bayonet training with more intense unarmed combat training, which their studies had shown would be much more useful - and necessary - in the kind of fighting their forces were facing 'on the ground' every day.)

In 'my war', a rifle had to be able to stand up to a very hostile natural environment, with extremes of heat, dust, grit and grime encountered every day. The weapon had to be functionally reliable anywhere, anytime, without having to be stripped down and cleaned at frequent intervals - something that was difficult to accomplish when one was constantly on the move. It also had to fire a bullet heavy enough to penetrate brush and scrub vegetation, to get at enemies concealed behind them. (I never liked the 5.56x45mm. round for that reason - too light. It was our experience that when we encountered a bush that was shooting at us, one [much heavier] 7.62x51mm. ball round to low center, followed by one low left and one low right, tended to pacify that bush instanter.)

I learned to loathe the US M16 rifle in those operational conditions, because it proved incredibly unreliable in the dust and dirt of Africa. No matter how much one tried to keep it clean, it'd get dust in the works and 'gum up'. This was traced to the fact that it uses a gas impingement system to operate its action - or, as our armorers used to say sourly, 'it craps where it feeds'. I've never trusted the M16/M4 rifles since then. (Admittedly, we tested the early M16A1 version of the weapon. I know it's been improved since then . . . but I just can't bring myself to overcome those ghastly early experiences.)

We also learned that one shouldn't hang anything on one's rifle that isn't going to be of direct and immediate assistance in combat - and it should be as tough as the rifle. If it was going to break down, or run its batteries flat at the wrong moment, it was a liability, not an asset. We regarded the AK-47 as the model for all other combat rifles.

AK-47 rifle (image courtesy of Wikipedia)

It proved incredibly reliable, even after real abuse from its untrained users, and would frequently fire even after being buried in mud for weeks or even months. It wasn't surprising that our 5.56mm. rifle, when finally adopted, used a modified AK-style action, and proved just as reliable. They weren't light, they weren't elegant, but they went BANG! every time. In a battle rifle, that's where it's at. Our motto was K.I.S.S., and we were almost religiously fanatical about it. It paid off in lives - our lives.

Of course, in saying that, I may be displaying the same prejudiced attitude as those who fulminated against the decision to drop bayonet training. In my day we would have regarded the dot sights, night vision scopes, bipods and other gizmos mounted on many modern service rifles as fripperies, not to be taken seriously by a real soldier. However, I have to concede that they've developed to the point where they have a reasonably long battery life, their reliability is almost as good as the gun on which they're mounted, and they offer real advantages in the typical combat scenarios confronting our troops. I guess (hanging my head) I probably wouldn't do very well in a modern combat environment with my 1970's-era weapons and training. I'd have a lot of leeway to make up before I could fit into a contemporary infantry squad. I don't like to admit that . . . it hurts my pride to have to confess to being a technological dinosaur! . . . but I guess that's reality.

Still, for personal defense, I think I'll stick to my K.I.S.S. principles. I don't think I'm going to have to take on ninjas, or a Marine assault team with all their bells and whistles. I'm a civilian now, and that sort of threat is unlikely to pop up in my neighborhood. Technological dinosaurs or not, I think for most of us combat veterans, our training, experience and attitude will see us through just fine if push comes to shove. Nevertheless, I daresay I'll keep an eye on what the youngsters are playing with these days. Something useful may come down the pike - and why should they keep all the nice toys to themselves?



Peter