U.S. Military won't replace their M16's, despite its long history of problems?

I kinda wondered why the U.S. Military won't use common sense to replace the M16 rifle, the one rifle that gets screwed over when it encounters one speck of bad conditions and also has many defects on the side. >_>

[spoiler=Intro to M16's, for those of you unaware of it]The M16 rifle has been serving as the main infantry rifle since the Vietnam War for U.S. Armed Forces, and has been serving as the main infantry weapon for 15 NATO countries, as well as 80 other countries .However, recent incidents have shown that this rifle is showing its age, as its defects and its constant jamming have proven a problem for some soldiers.

Fires 5.56 x 45mm NATO cartridge[/spoiler]

While the standard weapon right now for the U.S Military is the M16 rifle (M16A4), there's been a look for a new infantry weapon that would eventually replace the M16. So far, nothing worthy to mention, pnly a few experimental projects that had gone awry.



One notable experiment, the XM8 - despite the fact it was a canceled project - reflect how the M16 has become more of a liability issue. I was kinda shocked by how consistent M16 jammed.

Take a look at the weapon test results and see the major differences in both the XM8 and the M4/M16. Important info bolded/underlined (Credits to wikipedia for info)

In the Fall of 2007 the XM8 was compared to other firearms in a 'dust test.' The competition was based on two previous tests that were conducted in Summer 2006 and Summer 2007 before the latest test in the Fall of 2007. In the Summer 2007 test, M16 rifles and M4 carbines recorded a total of 307 stoppages. In the Fall 2007 test, the XM8 recorded only 127 stoppages in 60,000 total rounds while the M4 carbine had 882. The FN SCAR had 226 stoppages and the HK416 had 233. The difference between the XM8, HK416, and FN SCAR was not statistically significant when correcting for the less reliable STANAG magazine. However, the discrepancy of 575 stoppages between the Summer and Fall 2007 tests of the M4 had Army officials looking into possible causes for the change such as different officials, seasons, and inadequate sample pool size but have stated that the conditions of the test were ostensibly the same. The Army countered the controversy surrounding the M4 by stating, in essence, that troops are generally satisfied with the M4. However respondents indicated in independent interviews quoted in Congress that they would much prefer the M4-derivative HK416 or the XM-8 which it builds on.

Once you read that, you'll realize how the discrepancies is quite big. >_>

(Note: M4's/HK416's are only used by our special forces, like Navy SEALs, Delta forces, and such. IMO, I think they're better due to their versatility as well as having less jamming occurences)

Now that kinda leaves me wondering why our U.S. military doesn't use common sense and just put in their time and money to give their own soldiers better weapons. Sure, they're claiming that most soldiers are satisfied with the M4/M16's, but uh, the results say otherwise? Even some had mentioned that they'd prefer the XM8 or the M4's derivative, the HK416.

What do you guys think? Do you think its time for the U.S. military to man up and get this thing done? For me, I'd go with the XM8 because of its low jamming consistency as well as its bad-ass looks. xD

maybe its a matter of funding?

because if they change it, counterstrike will get screwed over and provide the wrong impression of guns.

I believe they had issues with the contract being too expensive compared to Colt's and supposed inconclusive testing.

Bah, I handled a M16 when I was 13 and now at 15 I can strip it down in less than a minute.

Anyway, on-topic, here in Singapore they replaced the M16 with a locally designed SAR 21 sometime last year. Though it's a little heavier than the M16, but overall, it's an improvement: not much cleaning needed(especially oiling, I hate it so), it's easier to load and strip, plus it has a scope, which is much better than the M16.

I believe they had issues with the contract being too expensive compared to Colt's and supposed inconclusive testing.

Well, tests can get expensive, that's true to a certain extent.......

But I'd take anything for a better weapon. Hell, I'd prefer a weapon that doesn't act up in sh'itty conditions or have a low rate of jamming, like the experimental XM8.

M16/M4's have been made fun of for a while now simply because it can foul up easily in bad conditions as well as its high rate of jamming. I dunno, but they better get the M16 replaced within a decade or so; otherwise the U.S. military will be screwed, lol.