The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Military & Military Surplus M-16 a Piece of Shit - ReVisitedGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| M-16 a Piece of Shit - ReVisited | Login/Join |
| one of us |
Since the original thread on this topic was getting a bit lengthy, I wanted to add a simple re-post to let everyone know that the History Channel is reviewing the M-16 tonight (Sunday, May 18,2003 at 2330 ET in the U.S. The program is 'Tale of the Gun' and follows 'Mail Call' The preview of this program speaks briefly to the subject of using the wrong gunpowder. It's only a half hour program but should shed some objective light on the subject. Set your VCR's, DVDs, Ultimate TVs or jusr stay up a little late and watch this program. I think it will help sort out some of the myths and realities about this weapon. Again, it's showing at 11:30 pm ET so I'll leave it to you to arrive at the correction for your time zone. Enjoy, XWind p.s. Personally I'm getting closer to purchasing an M-96 but am planning on watching the program with an open mind, albeit a rather small opening.. ![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif){kind=icon} | ||
|
| one of us |
Anyone who thinks the M-16 is a piece of shit is invited to stand downrange of mine for 20 shots. I'll give you 600 yards. ![[Big Grin]](images/icons/grin.gif){kind=icon} | |||
|
| one of us |
My "short version" is this... although the M-16 seems to stir controversy, I'll take mine into battle in a heartbeat, will shoot it in competition, and won't think twice about it. I think it's a fine weapon that suffers from a lot of guys giving the "Well, a friend of my buddy's who had a cousin in Viet Nam said...". It's come a long way since then. Do you still think cars only run 20 MPH, and getting 50,000 miles out of an engine is good? Shoot good ammo through it, clean it once in a while, and it won't let you down. | |||
|
| one of us |
I'll admit that I have never fired an M-16. I've never been in the service or a SWAT team, so I haven't had the chance. However, I have put a few (hundred) rounds through a Colt AR-15 that a shooting buddy of mine owns. I like the rifle so much that I am currently saving up the necessary pile of George Washingtons I'll need to buy one for myself. Now, I've seen that there are a lot of "other" manufacturers out there too, and I have not fired any of theirs. Maybe that's why some people feel the way they do. Frankly, this is a lot like the old Ford vs. Chevy debate. If you like one, you'll buy one. If you don't, you won't. Thank god we're all different and have different opinions, otherwise we'd ALL be shooting the exact same guns and wouldn't need this great site to discuss and learn more about guns and shooting. Rick | |||
|
one of us |
Rick,You can do what you like,but,,,,you should look hard at armalite,bushmaster,or,rock river arms for the ability of better parts swapping.Colt enlarged all the pin sizes of the fire controll group and the link pins,then put this "block" in the lower reciver thats sort of a p.i.a. to deal with if you want to work on your trigger.The other 3 will allow you to use mil spec parts. Don't expect anything promptly from bushmaster,,,,,you'll forget what you ordered before it arrives.Good luck! Clay | |||
|
| one of us |
Just curious, did anyone learn anything from the History Channel show? Or did anybody get a chance to watch it? Cheers, XWind | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:I've seen it about three times before already. I learned that the M-16A2 of today is a FAR cry from the M-16 and M-16A1 of Vietnam. | |||
|
| one of us |
The first post of this thread referenced the soldiers captured saying their weapons all malfunctioned. Trust me when I tell you that the M16A2 didn't let them down. I can't say why I know that, but... just trust me. It helps if you clean your weapon... at all. I've carried the M16 in one version or another since 1982. I never had problems with it, but have had a variety of magazine problems. Now a weapon that I'm also very familiar with and I think is a piece of crap, but few agree with me, is the M60 machinegun. I humped one of these for a few years as an enlisted guy. Then I had the chance to shoot the M240 and the thought struck me, "so this is the way a machinegun is supposed to work!" The ways an M60 can leave you hanging are manifold and the damned thing just seems to think of new ways to break/jam/malfunction. Drew | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Before jumping to contusions, please read this. http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.html | |||
|
one of us |
120mm, There are others saying nasty things about the M60. It appears much more so than the M16 to have real problems. But still has been in use a long time. | |||
|
| one of us |
I'm not jumping to contusions when I say that the soldiers involved in the ambush weren't particularly interested in weapons-cleaning. I'm here in Iraq, and I'm familiar with the unit and their state of weapons-maintenance across the board. On a slightly different tack, I've recently seen some rebuilt M16A2s that were "rough" to say the least, and they still appear to function. M16s and I have always had an "understanding". They continue to function in my hands, and I continue to do what it takes to keep them functional. Unfortunately, the typical, US non-combat arms soldier considers the M16 (or any weapon, for that matter) as a burden that life has somehow unfairly placed in their hands, and as such, they ignore the rifle until it's too late. I consider the M16 as a good compromise, and the M4 as a rather neat idea, especially in combination with night vision devices and laser sights. | |||
|
| one of us |
As far as the M60 is concerned, I could get mine to function, most of the time. It took sacrificing a few chickens, reading goat entrails and doing a special dance. And I was especially talented, as a gunner. As far as the fielding of the XM-16, who can argue with that account? The early rifles and their fielding was problemmatic, however... Once the major junk was sorted out, the M16 "worked". It's interesting to note that nearly the exact same thing (It's a Mickey Mouse piece of shit) was said about the M1903 Springfield (They also blew up with alarming regularity, if I recall, early on) the M1 Garand, and the M14. The magazine system on the M14, especially, is in my opinion, a rickety piece of crap that is hard as hell to change magazines when under pressure. The magazine system on the M1 Garand was also Rube Goldberg-esque. You ever try to "top-off" the ammo in an M1? You ever have a bottom plate spring open in an M1? All military weapons are a bunch of trade-offs, and all new weapons have unrealistic expectations, minor or major tweaks, and can be accompanied by poor logistics and training. Just my $.02 | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Concur 100%. Their magazine latching system SUCKS THE BIG ONE. [ 05-25-2003, 07:47: Message edited by: Orion 1 ] | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:"Topping off" an M1 Garand would seem impossible. Have you had a bottom plate spring open on an M1? My M1's bottom plate doesn't seem that happy to open? ![[Confused]](images/icons/confused.gif){kind=icon} | |||
|
| one of us |
A combat weapon that can't be "topped off" is a problem. When the M1 was fielded, soldiers and marines considered it "a mickey mouse piece of shit". It turned out to be an excellent weapon because soldiers were trained to use it and used discipline. Ditto the M16. I'm plumbing the depths of my memory when I remember this, but I seem to recall that my M1's magazine bottom plate could be "almost" closed, and would then eject whatever shells and spring at the most inopportune moment. Now that I think about it, the mauser type rifles had this same thing. Anyway, the point is that well-trained, disciplined soldiers can overcome minor operational problems with otherwise good weapons systems, and that the M16 makes a decent combat rifle and the M16A2 makes an excellent combat rifle. It would be handy to blame the M16A2 in view of the hysterical hero worship of the POWs, who, in the end, made a wrong turn, got lost and failed to maintain their weapons because they considered themselves truckdrivers, not soldiers. | |||
|
| one of us |
there is no way to open the bottom plate of an M-1 garand atleast not any I have ever seen | |||
|
| <Eric> |
Hey, 120mm I think you are getting the '03 Springfield and the M-1 Garand confused regarding the "floor plate." The Garand's floor plate is a fixed assembly that cannot "spring open." For that matter, it can't even fall off if properly installed as it's locked in by the trigger guard. My first weapon was a GM Hydramatic made M-16E1 (yes, thats right an E1). It was one of the first made to the M-16A1 configuration, before it's "official" adoption. This was Ft. Lewis, October 1970, and it worked all the time. It was used, abused, but perfectly functional, as long as I did my part and kept it clean. I used it to qualify on the "KD range," (qualified Expert while it was snowing) for automatic fire, and on the Infantry Assault course. Fall/Winter in Ft. Lewis sucks. Wet, cold, lots of sand on the ranges. My rifle never failed me. I liked it better than the M-4 carbine that I now use as a 19D PSG in the Oregon National Guard. When the buggers are pouring through the door, I want "rock and roll." As for accuracy, when I was a Drill Sergeant at FT. Ord, we used to fire semi-auto using the "A1" at the 650 meter targets on the automatic fire range and get consistant hits with the clip on bi-pod. We'ed just grab a stack of magazines from a table, a weapon from a trainee just coming off the range, and have at it. After we figured out the "Kentucky windage," we shot those targets to pieces. As for the M-60, I agree, it is a piece of crap. Better than nothing, but better than the 1919 Browning? Na, I don't think so. The "Pig" was designed using the feed system from the German MG-42 (a far superior weapon) and the bolt and operating rod system from the FG-42 (again an excellent weapon). I personally have a problem changing my front sight, the bi-pod, and most the gas system out with the barrel. Stupid, stupid, stupid. We only made the frigging thing because "the powers that be" didn't want to use something designed by a former enemy, especially as an attempt was tried during the war and failed. The design engineer forgot that the 30-06 was longer than the 8mm Mauser. Oops! Rather than fix the problem the idea was shelved, resulting in the M-60 much later. The M-240B is a swell weapon, but I still prefer the MG-3 (MG-42) as a squad machine gun. Less parts, fast barrel change, utterly reliable, combat tested for over 60 years and still rocking. My two cents, and regards, Eric | ||
|
| one of us |
Hey Eric, and all. You're right about me mixing up the mauser-system baseplate and the M1. Fellow Cavalry dittos to you, Eric. I got "drafted" to go to Iraq this time and ended up in the Corps Rear TOC. It is Cavalry Hell. I'm trying to gnaw off my arm or something to get out of here. I work with "female soldiers". Every once in a while I glance longingly at my M9 which would make it easy to "Go to Fiddler's Green." But remember that I'm happy with my wife and kids and my civilian job, and decide to do another day. Last week I saw a female 1LT with 2nd ACR Cavalry brass on her collar. She saw my remf patch and my cav brass on my collar, and I saw her cav brass on her collar, and we slowly backed around each other in the hall way, ensuring our gun arms were clear and we were facing each other. Looked like to alley cats with their backs in the air! Sorry about going off subject, here. Drew | |||
|
| one of us |
Oh, my first M16 was an M16 straight; no forward assist and three prong adapter. Most of the magazines sucked, but if you leaned forward on the magazine, it worked really well, blanks and/or real rounds. I received this fine weapon for a field problem I did as a PLC candidate with a Marine Reserve unit in 1983. They took it out of a crate, in unissued, unfired condition, and told us to get the cosmoline off and went straight to the field. I wouldn't want to take a non-forward assist m16 into a combat situation, but if I had to.... | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Have you followed the link? | |||
|
| one of us |
That link is referring to a rifle (XM16E1) that was produced some 35 years ago. It was a much inferior weapon to the modern day M16A2/M16A4 and M4A1 rifles that are in use with today's military. The problems with the original XM16E1 have been corrected. The after action report put out by the Marines(from operation Iraqi Freedom), had great praise for the current M16's reliability and effectiveness. Yes, sand is a great enemy of any rifle. That is why it is necessary to to be extra diligent when it comes to proper cleaning and maintnence in that environment. Like the old saying goes: "Take care of your rifle, and your rifle will take care of you." ![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif){kind=icon} | |||
|
| one of us |
Yes, I followed the link. I also posted a message in response to the early problems with the M16. sorry it happened that way, especially since I am a soldier, too. Still don't think it's relevant to the current-day M16. Or even the M16A1, for that matter. | |||
|
| one of us |
Claybuster, thanks for the info on the other AR-15 manufacturers. I was just posting by my personal experiance, and that is with a Colt. Their prices are a bit better than Colt, and I didn't know about the pin thing. Thanks, | |||
|
| one of us |
all the big problems with the AR have been fixed, but the main problem IMHO is the fact that if you shoot someone you probably dont want to do it with a glorified 22 it simply lacks the power to hit and take someone out of the fight. | |||
|
| Moderator |
I only ever played with the m60 a couple of times and was not impressed; I found our GPMG a better weapon but still not perfect. Now one MG I did like was our old LMG which was nothing more than a WW2 era Bren rebarreled to 7.62 Nato. The one I used (and this was in the 1980's!) had a date stamp of 1947 crossed out on the action. They were relatively light, very reliable, very quick change barrel, all together nearly perfect. Many felt the 30 box magazine was a disadvantage over a belt fed system, but i would say not in 90% of the situations a grunt finds himself in. A belt fed weapon would be better in the SF role.... Give me an LMG as a section weapon and a .5 Browning at company level in the SF role and i belive you have the best of both worlds. | |||
|
| one of us |
We use the FN version of the GPMG now. Not a bad weapon. Your Bren, and our BAR. Saw a Brit movie recently that had a stoned girl shooting a Bren. What a beautiful noise! Can't recall what the name of the movie was. | |||
|
| one of us |
| |||
|
| one of us |
Despite our running rabbit with glasses and chocolates; and our travel agent who's ordering Belgians not to take holidays in Facist countries like Austria or Israel; it's stil Belgian FN technology to keep our free world safe! Nice to know! dirk scout from the b-monkey country | |||
|
| one of us |
| |||
|
| one of us |
Some more empirical data: I used to carry an XM16E1 and it fired everything I shot through it, excluding blanks. It would shoot them after a fashion but did really well with ball ammo. I never had occassion to engage targets in excess of 300m and never had to shoot it at people. Later, and after a few M16A1s, my first M16A2 worked great. I nearly always shot 37s - 40s and I could only find one thing wrong. It needed its very own blank fire buffer spring in order to fire blanks reliably. I got an old one from the arms room and trimmed a few coils. Once again, with the ball ammo it was designed to fire, there were rarely any problems. When the Team and Squad Leaders are diligent in having their guys partially disassemble and wipe down dirty bolts, bolt carriers and other related parts on a regular basis, problems sort of go away. I know it can be a pain but having a jam in a firefight can be too. Paul | |||
|
| <VKTM39> |
Not trying to start a war here, but has anybody here done an endurance test with an M16 (any model), firing as many rounds as possible until it jams, without cleaning it? | ||
|
| one of us |
The weapon has evolved quite a bit since it was introduced. I think something in the 6mm family would be better than a 223 for knock down, that is my only complaint. | |||
|
| <VKTM39> |
quote:I'm not so sure it's a matter of diameter or energy, most veterans I've talked to agreed that a 9x19 will give much the same result as a 7,62x53R if it hits the same spot. These aren't even expanding bullets, although a modern military round makes a real nasty cavity when it hits. In short: my guess is that when it comes to damaging the enemy (make him a stop fighting), the construction of the bullet is more important than the actual caliber, but true stopping power comes from well placed shots. | ||
|
| one of us |
quote:Yes. Check this out: http://groups.msn.com/TheMarylandAR15ShootersSite/ar15reliability.msnw Edit: Just want to clarify that I did not perform this test. But still, it seems interesting. [ 06-05-2003, 19:22: Message edited by: LZ ] | |||
|
| one of us |
VTKM39 - Yes I've fired over 800 rounds using 20 round magazines (read that 40 magazines) ![[Eek!]](images/icons/shocked.gif){kind=icon} as fast as I could load and fire them on more than one occasion - gun got so hot I couldn't pick it up for 20 minutes.... Also knew another armorer that fired over 1200 rounds -(read that 60 magazines) as fast as he could and the rife did not jam up or fail to fire. Problems in the field were mostly related to a dirty rifle ![[Mad]](images/icons/mad.gif){kind=icon} , or a cracked gas tube . As I've said before, if you've not used an M-16 in combat don't knock it..... | |||
|
| <VKTM39> |
Thanks. What about doing it in one session? | ||
|
one of us |
Simply test, put M16 over night to mud, put there also AK-47 and SA vz. 58. Next day, take it form mud, kick with it to tree or shoe and fire it . . . Result is more than clear . . . Yes, M16 is capable of great accuracy, but in 1990 or 1991, two years after "revolution" here, US forces was training here and our soldiers overshot that superb M16 with their old SA vz.58 in accuracy at 300m fire. Then changed weapons and US soldiers overshot czechs in accuracy . . . It really differ military M16 and custom AR-15. And if you will not belive this what is 400m accuracy good for if you need to clean it three times a day in desert ?????? Jiri Jiri | |||
|
| <VKTM39> |
Jiri, how about adding a Valmet RK62 and make that time 3 weeks? It's been done. What's mechanical accuracy good for anyway? It's the one pulling the trigger that needs to be accurate, especially under stress. Everybody who has ever hunted knows what I mean. Just imagine the deer shooting back | ||
|
| one of us |
quote:Hey Jiri, To jest neoceniteln� humoristick� dle jeden občan of člen určit� Čech Republika. B�t �ťasten tvůj duch tam....jako takov� ono is! HAHAHARDEHARDEHARHARHAR!! | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |