I was more or less thinking along the lines of these kid-soldiers in Africa or demoralized draftees at the end of the Vietnam conflict. I am convinced that a professional, well-trained soldier will take care of his weapon, because he is aware of the dangers when he doesn't!

Originally Posted by Ted

I am convinced that a professional, well-trained soldier will take care of his weapon, because he is aware of the dangers when he doesn't!

Don't be so convinced. Most of the complaints about the M16/M4s from the US military come from guys that have simply neglected their weapons. NCOs have to stay on them all of the time. It's often the little and most important details that are the most forgotten.

You can clean a M16 in less than three minutes. Just get a brass brush and a bore snake. BAM! The barrel is done. Need to clean the gas tube. You get a Pipe Tobacco cleaner and run that through the gas tube. BAM! that's done too.

The bolt, just spray a little oil on it and wipe it down with a rag.

It's not hard to clean it really quick to keep it working. Will it pass inspection? More than likely no, but it will work.

I have fired every M-16 from the original all the way up to the M-4. I think PJ and 5.56's comments are right on the mark and I hope Sherman listens to them.

I have never fired a weapon in my whole life. the veterans I have talked to sometimes give the thumbs up or the thumbs down to the M-16. In my humble opinion I would like to us the M4A1.

You do know that the M-4A1 is virtually the same weapon as the M-16, right?

Yeah, I think M-4's barrel is shorter than M-16.

shortened barrel, collapsible stock- the main differences between the two weapons.

Originally Posted by c/Commander

You do know that the M-4A1 is virtually the same weapon as the M-16, right?

Yes, but there is a whole bunch of cool stuff you can put on it.

I've used the M-16 on occasion. OK, on lots of occasions. I've used it in the humidity of the jungle, the arid sand of the desert, and in ice and snow. It was for most of my life my primary weapon.
I won't say that it is the perfect all purpose weapon nor will I say that I was unhappy with it in general. There were times when I wished it had more penetrating power or had a larger ammunition capacity. The failure of magazines has been discussed here and I agree that they left a lot to be desired at times.
Of course, it had trade offs. The lighter weight was a plus while the lack of penetrating capacity of the ammo was not.
Because it's a more precisely made machine, you must perform more maintenance than on some other rifles (ie. AKs) to keep it functioning properly.
If you would compare the 16 to it's biggest competitor, the AK, the M-16's accuracy is a plus. I'm not an armorer or ballistics expert but I can tell you from personal experience that at distances of greater than about 150 meters, involving a soldier with an M-16 and one with an AK-47, the guy with the AK is SOL.
Many of the early problems with the M-16 were the result of bad 5.56 ammo. It was made with dirty burning powder and carbon would quickly accumulate and cause jams. The ammo and maintenance were improved and many problems were prevented. The same can be said for the magazines made for the 16. The spring was poor and ammo would fail to feed into the chamber. This was also remedied.
This is an old discussion but I thought I'd throw my $.02 into it anyway. I'll leave the discussion of other, newer rifles to those with more experience with them than I.