M-16 /M4 v. the 416

Any of you folks up on the M-16 vs. HK416 debate?

Essentially, the firing mechanism for the M4 (designed originally for the M-16) has been reviled since it's inception. At bottom, the mechanism enables significant carbon fouling in the barrel, which promotes frequent jamming. One Silver Star winner (OIF I) had to surrender to Iraqi Troops because his M-16 kept jamming at critical moments, and eventually became inoperable.

Recently a US Army Special Forces battalion caused a huge brouhaha because it announced it's intentions to procure upper receiver assemblies (designed for the HK416) to modify their M4's that are infinitely more reliable than the M-16's 40 year old technology. Trials show that these 416 assemblies can pump out thousands and thousands more rounds before failure.

Shouldn't regular grunts be afforded the same luxury?

Should we balk at spending $1BLN on something extremely practical, while we pump funding into fighter aircraft for dogfights that aren't happening right now?

I'm all for staying a generation ahead of any peer competitor in air combat...but I think we could sacrifice a jump in air-to-air combat capability, to switch out our fleet of crappy rifle upper receiver assemblies. (It's not even a new gun! It's just the freakin' assembly!)

Discuss.

Remember, I heard it first in The Danger Room.

The 416 in action...(I think the "functionality issues" one of the evaluators was discussing regarded the trade-off of range and muzzle velocity that was lost with the transition from the long-barrel M-16 to the short-barrel M4. If I remember correctly, that was the big reason the Marines retained the M-16 as their service rifle...if the 416 could redress that issue...wow...)