It's a pretty decent article until...
Although the M16A1 "” introduced in the early 1980s "” has been heavily modernized, experts say it still isn't as reliable as the AK-47 or its younger cousin, the AK-74. Both are said to have better "knockdown" power and can take more of a beating on the battlefield.
They're actually referring to the a2. But I find the experts' claim to be highly dubious. The AK's are more reliable but the 47 (More specifically the AKM. Most non-74 rifles are AKM's or a myriad of AKM-clones) don't have better "knockdown" power at range.
I'm glad to see that people are capable of pointing out the obvious downsides to different types of firearms (IE a shorter barrel yields less range and muzzle velocity) but it the whole thing just comes off as really negative and anti-American technology.
Instead of the M-16, which also is prone to jamming in Iraq's dusty environment, M-4 carbines are now widely issued to American troops.
Uh... an M-4 will jam just as much as M-16 will because...
The M-4 is essentially a shortened M-16A2...
The statement about the M-4 being full auto is also erroneous. The M-4a1 is full auto.
Finally, the OICW is dead. For now. Army Times recently reported that the technology simply isn't there to make a rifle that meets all the criterion. They're just going to use the M-8 in the mean time.
They haven't archived the article yet, but once they do I'll post it up.