What was/is most lacking about your service weapon?

[BallisticHarmony]

It's easy to get overwhelmed by all the internet conjecture about what should be done to improve the capabilities of the infantry carbine, but all that really matters is what people on the ground thought. It's also easy for people behind keyboards to just slam a bunch of stuff onto the receiver to try and solve a shortcoming, but more often than not that just adds unnecessary weight to an already heavy hump. What were some genuine gripes you had about your issued weapon, and what would you have done or added or fix it?

1. Weight is often talked about regarding full-size rifles and belt-feds. Is weight a primary concern for the infantryman, or should lethality and volume of fire still be prioritized? Do you prefer certain rifle setups such as optic or suppressor preferences purely due to added weight to the weapon? How much weight is acceptable and what should the maximum weapon weight be?

2. Excessive barrel lengths can reduce maneuverability in tight quarters. How much of a combat deployment consists of CQB vs spread out firefights (obviously that depends on the unit and terrain, but a ballpark estimate of current conflicts), and should maneuverability be prioritized over muzzle velocity and terminal effective range?

3. Optic magnification is also hotly debated online. Did you feel under zoomed with your issued optic, and which capabilities do you wish you had that you didn't? Should light weight and fast target acquisition be prioritized, or should extended magnification, target identification and precision marksmanship aid be prioritized?

4. Terminal ballistics. Which 5.56/7.62 round did you do the most of your shooting with, and did you think that it was at all lacking in terms of accuracy or terminal effectiveness? Is shot placement more important than fragmentation for most engagements, or does bullet behavior make a massive impact on combat effectiveness? Would you have preferred to be able to use commercial expanding ammunition? Would you have liked a heavier, longer-range round?

5. Did you experience any reliability issues with your weapon that weren't related to poor maintenance or cleaning? How many of your failures were magazine related, ammo related, or weapon related? Do you wish you'd been issued something else?

6. Did the standard grip, stock, hand guard or other attachments cause discomfort or impede your ability to effectively carry out your work? Did the A2 grip angle seem adequate for close quarters?

These are just a few brainstorm ideas to get the ball rolling, but I'd love to hear your thoughts. Any and all feedback is more than welcome. It will be interesting to see how the newly acquired "Geissele and friends" upper will fare in the years to come. Some say it's overpassed but others say it's not. Surely it will be an improvement, although at some point I personally think all carbines should be traded in for Knights. Not this year, but maybe in 10 or 15.

[Eurodriver]

My biggest gripe was that no matter how many Iraqis I shot at it with I’d still come home and have old guys who served in the USAF during peacetime (or not at all) call me a “freaking millennial” on message boards.

USMC M16A4 w/ PVQ-31A & PEQ-15

It was also long as ****.

[17K]

These millennials whining about how long their A4 is.

Back in my day....

[R6436]

USMC M16A4 w/ PVQ-31A & PEQ-15

It was also long as ****.

A4? Back in my days in Iraq all we had was M16A2's. Nothing else. In M915A4's. Would've "liberated" an M4 from the 82nd guys I was with in a heartbeat if I thought I could've gotten away with it.

In regards to the OP's questions: Even as small of a build as I have and with gloves the A2's grip is a bit small. For the conditions/situations we operated in a 20" barrel was annoying at the least, possibly unneeded at the most. Our security elements had ACOGs issued and installed on their rifles, only difference with them and us was the drove in HMMWV's.

[AndyLate]

This is an interesting thread but my experience (for example) spans over 20 years and 3 completely different career fields. I was never a tip of the spear guy.

I carried an M16A1 in Desert Storm, an M9 in Bosnia, and an Aimpoint equipped M16A2 in OIF. In between, I carried a M249 and an A2/M203.

In my opinion/limited expirience, the A2s were pretty long and clumsy for the primarily mounted or urban operations in Iraq (circa 2005) and the fixed stock sucks with body armor.

I would have been better served by a simple M4/CCO during my career. Compact, adjustable and relatively easy to shoot well enough.

Andy

[WTF?Shane]

I carried a plain old A2. I cannot complain because I wasn't a ground pounder. During deployment, the most action it seen was being cleared before entering the chow hall.

[Jammer Six]

M16A1.

It jammed. A dirty weapon was worse. That meant that in combat you were working against a clock, because every shot was being marked up against you.

[ABNAK]

M16A1 for four years as an Army grunt. No optics, because none were available at the time and none were authorized (I can just see if someone had bought an old Colt carry handle scope.....the 1st SGT would've been like "Who the hell told you to put that on your weapon?"). Panama, so a jungle environment. Basically the same environmentally as Vietnam without the NVA or VC trying to kill you! It's been a long time but I don't recall it being a huge deal moving through bush with it.

To this day I have an A1 clone for old times sake and marvel at it's lightweight and handling, especially for a 20" rifle. We've gotten so used to M4geries with rail and RDS/ACOG (at a minimum) that they nearly weigh the same as the old A1, of course without the cool actual performance-enhancing stuff we see nowadays.

[hk_shootr]

I thank you all......

[Coal Dragger]

Like Eurostiver I was last issued an M16A4, this was 2004 when all Marine infantry, aside from Recon units, were still rocking the 20” full size M16 variant.

I was issued a AN/PEQ-2, and an ACOG for the rifle. I also took my privately owned Aimpoint Comp M2 in an ARMS mount, which I came to prefer and my command allowed.

I really liked the M16A4 overall. The 20” wrung out close to max performance from the 5.56mm NATO, and sure seemed to dick up the few Iraqis I, or my platoon mates, had to engage. We didn’t see a ton of combat in early 2004, so my “combat” use knowledge is limited compared to many on this site.

I would have liked the rifle to have a shorter stock or a collapsible stock to make it easier to deal with wearing the Interceptor body armor with SAPI plates, and deal with in vehicles. I had also started shooting competitive rifle on my own time prior to deployment, and the trigger in the M16 was and remains painful awful garbage for anyone used to a decent trigger. I guess it would have been nice if about 1lb could have been shaved off the rifle weight, but I got used to humping it around and didn’t notice it much.

Otherwise my complaints are going to revolve around 20/20 hindsight that generate unfair criticism of issued gear that at the time was a big improvement over my previously issued M16A2. Looking at the purpose driven improvements over the past 15 years to the M4/M16 platform obviously will draw an unfavorable comparison for my 2004 era issued M16A4. Obviously had the KAC SR-16 been available and had I a choice in the matter I’d have chosen an SR-16, or the M27, or the USASOC M4 upgrade.