Grunt, from what i understand, the reason for those problems was that the gov. got so hyped up about the new "space gun" and issued them saying they never needed to be cleaned, which simply isn't true. the military, finally realizing their stupidity, then issued out cleaning kits solving many of the problems the M-16 was known for.It was perhaps a gun too far ahead of its time however, since the materials it was made with could have used a couple more years to catch up. ie: plastics capable of being used on a firearm
many US soldiers were like yourself discouraged by the beginning problems but I urge you to give them another shot (no pun intended) the design really has improved alot since then.
please not trying to argue just pointing out this little tidbit of info don't get me wrong I'm a huge fan of the M-14 (which is still used by some snipers today for a reason)
my main complaint would be the trouble with knockdown capabilities with that caliber (5.56 NATO), even though its designed to tumble on impact, and has very high velocity, the ft lbs of force it delivers leave something to be desired, especially compared to the M-14 (.308...or was it 30-06?....i think it was .308...), which was said to be "even more powerful and accurate than the soldiers needed" which to me doesn't seem like a bad thing at all
now if the Geneva convention didn't prohibit the use of hollow points in warfare, the M-16/M-4 might be a more formidable tool.
if you're looking for raw reliability and knockdown power however, the AK-47/AK-74 is the way to go for sure, but the US troops are too good of shots to be able to effectively use the AK