Has he personally used one in combat?
or does he work for a company making piston uppers?
Each system has plusses and minuses; folks I really respect tell me DI is no worse than piston.
Answer to the first question is yes. MG (ret.) Robert Scales is a Vietnam Veteran and I've heard him mention in talks during college they used the M-16. Those were talks I thoroughly enjoyed. He pulled no punches then, and doesn't seem to do so now.
He works as a news commentator and I've seen him on FOXnews over the last decade or so, commenting on military matters.
As the second question, I have no idea.
This article starts with a bang and ended with a whimper in my opinion. First, the range ratings for the M-4 / M-16 variants are incorrect. The manual states 800m and that's what it is. Second, if he's talking about the sound suppressors I'm thinking of
á la this:
http://www.surefire.com/tactical-equipment/sound-suppressors/rifle-carbine-suppressors.html then I disagree. My understanding is that these reduce the range. If he's talking about muzzle breaks, then ok. Third, the special operations forces he talks about ordering things off the shelf willy-nilly are more then likely the special mission units. As such, they have a reason, a purpose, and a time-sensitive need to acquire materials quickly. Life in the SF Regiment is certainly different than what he is implying, although we do have some good kit, helmets, RFI's, etc. Fourth, as far as pulling no punches, I agree with his comparison to the cost of the F-35 but flaming inter-service rivalry is not going to help on the acquisitions front. Look at it this way: the Air Force was able to articulate and effectively persuade people to give them money for their new top-of-the-line fighter jet. The purpose, use, capability, etc is all secondary once we accept the fact the USAF was better at getting people to give them money than the Army. Until the Army, Acquisitions Corps, whoever gets better at persuading and influencing people to do what they want them to do (sound like a familiar skill?) then we lose on this front. Fifth, he admitted laziness among himself and his soldiers in Vietnam, hence the weapons failures. I'm not passing judgement, just repeating his own words:
I was too inexperienced—or perhaps too lazy—to demand that my soldiers take a moment to clean their guns, even though we had heard disturbing rumors about the consequences of shooting a dirty M16.
At 3 o’clock in the morning, the enemy struck. They were armed with the amazingly reliable and rugged Soviet AK‑47, and after climbing up our hill for hours dragging their guns through the mud, they had no problems unleashing devastating automatic fire. Not so my men. To this day, I am haunted by the sight of three of my dead soldiers lying atop rifles broken open in a frantic attempt to clear jams
. My Dad swore against the M-16 during his two Vietnam tours and carried an M-1 Carbine and an M3 Grease gun.
He makes some good points. Yes they get dirty easily, they jam, they are plastic, etc. etc. however the cleanliness issues are fixed via training and discipline. He fails to make a convincing argument for a replacement. He argues for an increased caliber in 6.5mm and 7mm. Okay, I've got no opinion because I haven't used either. Half of us had M-4's, half of us had SCARs in 7.62mm and we killed people with both. Why not argue for SCARs Army wide to avoid costs of R&D for the 6.5 or 7mm? He argues for new sights but I would counter a lot of soldiers require better, more frequent training on the equipment they already have. Case in point: training FA guys at Fort Bliss two years okay we found ten who had no idea which was their dominant eye. True story. Taking a look at how SF trains at the team and at the Advanced Skills Company level would be a good start. Fundamentals, practice, training, cleaning, more practice, harder training, rinse, repeat. It's not hard, but some units I've come in contact with consistently fail to train properly. They should start with that before asking for different (not necessarily better) equipment.
