Mission-making question: Are weapons without optics still in common use in combat situations? Would it be unusual for a US combat soldier to carry an iron sighted weapon? Also, is the M-16A2 still used by any US soldiers deployed overseas, or are they all M-4/M-16A4 now?

actually...from what I've seen and noticed... weapons with sights, even the M60 and SAW now-a-days are more common and quite the norm.

Back when i was in the Army 85-95 it was the cold war, where we were going to have typical wars with 1000's of people in the woods...killing each other... now-a-days thou the war on terror requires more precision type killing...so most soldiers have sights as compared to the main stream soldier of my day who used iron sights.

JMO

Not aware of any M16A2s still being used by frontline US troops. The Afghan National Army got a bunch of them. US Army uses M4 with optics exclusively. USMC uses M4s and M16A4s with optics, the vast majority ACOGs. M249 without optics is less unusual. M240 without optics is even less unusual.

M16A2s can still be found in National Guard units (such as the one I was in) and second-line formations, such as supply and maintenance companies. I carried a plain iron sight M16A2 made in the mid-80s when I was deployed to Iraq in 2004 (I was a medic assigned to a forward support medical company).

While the regular Army has received a lot of technological upgrades, it's important to remember that the DOD still relies heavily on National Guard formations for overseas deployments. A lot of those National Guard units are still using relatively old (when compared to the regular Army) weapons and equipment.

My U.S. Army reserve unit got the M4's with the Aimpoint, rail system and front vertical grip before deployment to Iraq in late 2007 but I guess we where the lucky ones because most Active and Reserve 2nd line/support component units still carried the M16A2 with no optics at the time.

Iron sights are the prefered sighting system for close combat in a jungle type enviroment.. you wouldn't want optics in dense vegetaion where you need good peripheral vision as well as a simple sight for extremely close range engagements.

I think we are including aimpoints, eotechs and other 1x sights under the optics header here.

As has already been stated, there are indeed many second echelon and guard/reserve units deployed with M16A2's, though many are transitioning to M16A4's to benefit from Picatinny rail additions so they can mount optics, at a cost savings versus the price of a new M4. I find this to be a good compromise as the M16 is still a great weapon and with added optics, makes it almost on par with the M4. The only advantage offered by the M4 design is the Picatinny rails and the collapsible stock, great for the infantryman clearing a close quarters area, such as rooms or trenches.

It is also noted that many stateside guard and reserve units do still utilize M16A2's, as there is a shortage of M4's available stateside, priority being deployed units. Many deployed guard combat arms units (infantry, armor, artillery) and combat support (MP, ADA, ENG) have M4's available in theater. It is a shame that there are not enough for every Soldier, regardless of full time or active status, but the focus should indeed be on the door kickers, including those escorting convoys and not the FOBBIT's that may be ambushed at some point during their tenure overseas. It's simply matter of practicality over ego.

With regards to optics, they are a high priority and should be, but we also train and qualify with iron sights too, as they stay mounted on the rail in case your bateries die or optic goes FUBAR. The Trijicon has now combined the ACOG and EO tech similar site, to get the best of both worlds. http://www.trijicon.com/user/parts/products1.cfm?PartID=554&back_row=4&categoryID=3

Matt

The EOTECH allows you to focus with both eyes open, it's a reflexive sight and works great in close quarters and thick vegetation, was my preferred sight of choice.

Matt

Yes, but you try taking any optic sight into the jungle.. you'll spend most of your time wiping the lenses clean, due to constant dampness and the humidity.. totaly impractical.

M68 Reflex site, I would agree. However, the EO Tech works great in wet/triple canopy environments. Fort Lewis reservation has many most of it's training areas that are double and triple canopy rain forest and the EO Tech had absolutely no issues for me, the M68 however is a different story. Also, when stationed in Panama not so long ago, we had the M68's and they fared ok, though you are right in that we generally preferred the Back up Iron Sight instead. I guess my point in all of this is technology has advanced and certainly enhanced the Soldier's on the ground.

Trooper, as an addition, the EO Tech imposes a holographic type image that looks as though it's floating, whereas the M68 and ACOG have a fixed reticle, forcing you to actually focus on the dot/pip versus the holographic display looks more like a bullseye and just naturally lends itself to ease of focus and keep both eyes open while sweeping. Finally, the EO Tech has a much larger aperture, like a small HUD, so very difficult for water to effect. I am not saying you are totally wrong, there are many optics with smaller openings, where moisture would affect clarity of vision, but again, engineers are finally listening to the executors of policy and weapon design.

Matt

Just talking from my experience mate is all.. I'll bow to your experience and remarks on the EO Tech though as I've never used it
We always find that we have to keep reminding our lads not to get 'lost' or 'tunnel visioned' when using optic sights as it's easy to just concentrate on your own little world when viewing the target.

Trooper, you are right about the "tunnel vision effect", which was very difficult to break when we first employed the M68. It is also the reason most optics are not magnified, so as to present a more natural affect when sighting. When I was deployed and only had either the M68, EO Tech or ACOG, the 68 was ruled out as too basic, in my taste. Since most missions involved building clearence or close quarters, the EO Tech was terrific. However, there were times when I really wanted the magnification to ID a target before engaging and the ACOG wins hands down. I look forward to getting use of the newest sight which combines the best of both worlds, but being a First Sergeant now, will ensure my company is taken care of before I pick up mine, going back to swallowing my ego for betterment of a subordinate. Afterall, if I'm kicking in the door as the 1SG, it's a byproduct of an ambush, not as a purposeful #1 man in a stack.

I apologize for jumping on a soapbox, about my experiences versus yours or anyone, but the beauty of Fort Lewis is that we do indeed have some great training environments that prepare us well for deployment. Besides, it wasn't so long ago, as a new Soldier, remembering it was much more of a pray and spray mentality versus precision and positive engagements now.

Matt

lol.. no drama mate.
My job at the moment is to prepare and train guys for Afghan, so I'm involved to the hilt in making sure I can impart the best knowledge available to them before they go... I teach weapons, run ranges, battlefield first aid, and counter IED etc so I hope it doesn't sound like I'm just bumping my gums when I make comment on the forums..

LOL, absolutely doesn't sound like you're just bumping your gums! You providing your country's finest troops with current tactics, techniques and procedures is extremly valuable and irreplaceable, making you a combat multiplier. You certainly lost no points with me in your counter arguement, as all are valid points. Anyway, always like sparring with other current or former military. Allows me to see other techniques and viewpoints that we often arrogantly discount because we think our fight is different than their fight is. Have a great day and talk to you later.

Matt

Haha.. yep, always good to have a bit of 'banter' with other forces.. and you know how we in the UK love to wind people up! Good for morale.. I've spent quite a bit of time with US airborne forces on exchange tours.. Was with your guys out in Italy, and then again at Rhode Island.. oh what fun!

Never made it to Italy, but much time in Fort Bragg and Fort Benning, which is why Fort Lewis was a nice break. Absolutely thought a vehicle would destroy my light infantry soul, but found my previous experiences more suited to the new Stryker Brigades. We absolutley do not live off the vehicles, but fight with them. It's a great unit and very tight knit. We have only had a company of Irish Rangers appear in the Pacific Northwest, talk about fun, between language barriers and alcohol tolerances, was also a great time.

Anyway, have a great weekend. It's a four day weekend, so off to enjoy the nice weather.

Matt

I rarely saw any soldiers that carried M16/M4 leave the FOB without optics, with a few exceptions (occasional support troops) in 2005. Many Marines I encountered still had rifles with fixed carry handle sights, and none of their SAWs had optics. For those that had optics it was mostly M68, then ACOGs, followed by EoTech and the piece of crap ELCAN for the SAWS/240s (240s often went without optic). I didn't see optics on many mounted crew served's.

By 2008 I think all National Guard and Reserve units were getting brand new M4s, 240s, 50 cals, even pogue units that had absolutely no need for them.

On my first tour I was pissed that most of us had M16A4s and SAWs w/out picatinny rails until I ran into a California Reserve unit that had the original Vietnam M16s - with half the blueing worn off.

Btw I haven't gotten the game (looks great!) yet but I'm really getting a kick out of the 240 gunner character model, firing the gun with his support hand right underneath the ejection port.

Many non-combat arms units regularly leave their bases and deploy without optics, it's not a necessity, but a nicety. I saw better than half without them, because again they are low priority to field and fill. I would disagree the Elcan is not good kit. It's strictly depends on how well zeroed the optic is, for that matter, any optic. We regularly used them on the 240 and when available the first deployment, the 249 as well. On the second trip, most 249's were equipped and the crews spent many hours on the zero and qual range ensuring accuracy of their sight.




The M16A4 is only a recent addition to the US inventory and is meant to compliment the M4's being fielded to Combat arms and Combat Support units. Many stateside guard and reserve units still have in their armories M16A1/A2's and M60's. There are some that do have M4's and M240's, but most of them are left in Iraq or Afghanistan for follow on guard/reserve forces that relieve the existing guard/reserve units. Also, it's the Picatinny rails that make the M16A4 an M16A4. Without it, it's another M16A2. There's no difference in the barrel twists, or anythigng else that distinguishes the M16A2 from the M16A4 except the rails. Here's a link from Colt: http://www.colt.com/mil/M16.asp.

Not sure how you qualify "pogue" units as not needing upgraded weapons, but they are combat multipliers in their own right, and they have a right to defend themselves, beit with new or older weapons. I wholeheartedly agree there needs to be a pecking order in who has priority, but much of that also plays into what sort of priority that unit has and who they are supporting. As for the .50 cal, it's been around since WWII and a staple in all units, regardless of active, reserve or guard status. My point is there are absolutely no shortages of the Ma Duece, it's a fantastic weapon for anti personnel/material and light vehicles.

Matt

My NG unit was issued new M4's with M68's just before deploying. I have seen lots of M16A2 junk, but only in the hands of Air Force security forces.

Hooah, just hooah. That is all.

Matt

Eh, I disagree:

Semi-auto shotguns with 00 buck are the best in dense jungle or foliage!

lol.. now, you know I was discussing the subject of sighting systems, not the best type of weapon used.

Shotguns (Point and Shoot). You aim with your finger with a shotgun - What I mean by that: Essentially you have your target, and fire in its general direction. You're bound to connect with it if you are fast enough.

(I am an avid trap-shooter: With any shell that fires pellets, just remember to have that knee ready and the gun partially down, the follow-through with the shot is usually by finger/pointing with your fore grip.)

--

The reality is that in any dense forest/jungle - Optics are as good as Iron-Sights. Solely because you're fighting on top one another, and in reality, if you focus too much on just one target you're bound to get flanked and most likely ripped to shreds; both eyes open at all times and point with the barrel...

--

Now getting into the more advanced systems - heat/thermal, etc. A whole different ball-game.

--

As for what Magnum said, it is pretty prevalent to see sights on a SAW and rifle...Both Aimpoint and Acog... If the armory has it and their unit is the creme de la creme of the fighting forces, they usually get cooler #%&*$#. (or elected to test out new gear...)

So whichever way you go with it, try to place the type of battle, with the type of unit, and factor in remoteness/scarcity of assets/bases. - Then take into consideration those factors and see what can be used and what would be realistic in terms of the scenario.