THE ACCURATERELOADING.COM MILITARY FORUM

Page 1 2 3 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
M-16 a Piece of Shit - ReVisited
 Login/Join
 
<Jordan>
posted
In his book "We Were Soldiers Once..." BG Hal Moore briefly describes the aftermath of the first Air Cav encounter in Vietnam [the Ia Drang valley] in the observation of all the jammed and broken M-16 rifles in and about dead American soldiers.

A military which places soldiers in harms way by not ironing out the bugs in the M-16 before requiring soldiers to depend on it for their lives does not inspire my confidence in its pronouncements that the M-4 is now a sound weapon. I know we've accumulated alot of experience since Vietnam, but it appears that that experience is not unassailable. I also think the .223 round is underpowered. A 75-80 grain pill moving at 3500 fps would not be marginal on human targets at 400 yards, as the .223 is. There is also the problem of the M-16/M-4's ghost ring combat sights. For the average soldier, they suck past 300 meters.

On the positive side, I was once an artilleryman serving as a reservist. I was in an ammo section in a 155 Battalion [towed]. Our unit qualified on the M-16 once a year. In addition to hauling their 155 projectiles and powder, the ammo section would load up all the magazines for the gun bunnies for M-16 qualification.

When the shooting was over, there was usually alot of loaded mags left over---I mean sometimes footlockers full. We could not repackage and return our draw of ammo, so it fell to the ammo section to shoot it up. Of course we pursued this task with glee---far away from earshot of the Battalion commander. I remember stuffing my cargo pockets with as many loaded 30 round mags as I could get in. On numerous occassions I shot M-16s on full auto until the barrels were blue with heat and the rifle was literally too hot to hold. I mean, we abused these weapons. Sometimes you could get them hot enough that they would run away, cooking off rounds until the mag was empty.

When a rifle became too hot to hold, we would put it down, grab another and rifle and bang away on full auto until that one got to hot, by which time the previous rifle was usually cooled down enough to shoot a few more mags through. Sometimes we would douse them with breakfree. The oil would just smoke when it hit those blue hot barrels.

Full auto an an almost unlimited supply of ammo and rifles is alot of fun.

My .02 worth.

Jordan

P.S. We also did the same thing with the left over .50 cal rounds. We had a 5 ton with a ring mount. We'd go out in the desert [Dugway Proving Grounds] and really have a blast with the .50 in a ring mount. None of this rationing of .50 cal rounds like in AIT!
 
Reply With Quote
<Jordan>
posted
And if I may buttress the argument of Ol Son-of a-gun on the matter of the charging handle. As with the M-16, in order to cycle the M-4 through a "problem" cycle, the soldier must employ three different controls at three different locations on the rifle [which is assinine]. First the soldier employs the charging handle to charge the bolt. But instead of releasing the bolt via the charging handle, the soldier must first "nest" the charging handle and then manipulate an entirely different control on the left side of the rifle, the bolt release.

If the bolt does not move fully into battery, then the soldier has to manipulate a third control---the forward assist located on the opposite side of the rifle from the bolt release.

Am I missing something or is this not completely assinine? Excuse me enemy combatant while I manipulate three different controls in three different locations on three sides of my weapon [if you will] while you have me pinned down with withering rifle fire. What possible combat benefit is derived from a design which requires the manipulation of the three different controls in three different locations on the rifle just to cycle the damn bolt in the event of a problem feed!?

And then there was that ridiculous damn drill [with its mnemonic we had to memorize] in the event of a jam. Training us in that stupid drill [which included tapping on the bottom of the damn magazine no less] and its silly mnemonic was, to my thinking, tantamount to an admission by the Army that the M-16 was a truly f'ed up weapon. If the M-16 and M-4 was a great combat arm, would we really be training soldiers to clear jams by employing procedures so complicated that they had to be memorized and applied in a practically numeric order and which could only be learned by the use of a damn silly word game?

I will say this, there was no comparison in terms of quality, design and accuracy between the M-16s I shot and the HK 630 semi-autos I have owned over the years [delayed roller lock action, same as the HK assault rifles]. Never had to tap the bottom of the mags on that rifle. Unlike the M-16, the fit was so precise that no benefit could be derived by tapping so as to take up "slop" in fit to get the rifle to work right.

Jordan
 
Reply With Quote
Cold Bore
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan:
...in the observation of all the jammed and broken M-16 rifles in and about dead American soldiers.

...When the shooting was over, there was usually alot of loaded mags left over---I mean sometimes footlockers full. On numerous occassions I shot M-16s on full auto until the barrels were blue with heat and the rifle was literally too hot to hold. I mean, we abused these weapons. Sometimes you could get them hot enough that they would run away, cooking off rounds until the mag was empty.

When a rifle became too hot to hold, we would put it down, grab another and rifle and bang away on full auto until that one got to hot, by which time the previous rifle was usually cooled down enough to shoot a few more mags through. Sometimes we would douse them with breakfree. The oil would just smoke when it hit those blue hot barrels.

Full auto an an almost unlimited supply of ammo and rifles is alot of fun.
So, thru your own admission, you ABUSED these weapons, intentionally. You fired thousands of rounds as fast as you could. Yet you never mention a malfunction or stoppage... Hmmmm.... Sounds like they worked huh?
 
Posts: 2629 | Registered: 21 May 2002Reply With Quote
Cold Bore
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan:
As with the M-16, in order to cycle the M-4 through a "problem" cycle, the soldier must employ three different controls at three different locations on the rifle [which is assinine]. First the soldier employs the charging handle to charge the bolt. But instead of releasing the bolt via the charging handle, the soldier must first "nest" the charging handle and then manipulate an entirely different control on the left side of the rifle, the bolt release.

And then there was that ridiculous damn drill [with its mnemonic we had to memorize] in the event of a jam. Training us in that stupid drill [which included tapping on the bottom of the damn magazine no less] and its silly mnemonic was, to my thinking, tantamount to an admission by the Army that the M-16 was a truly f'ed up weapon. If the M-16 and M-4 was a great combat arm, would we really be training soldiers to clear jams by employing procedures so complicated that they had to be memorized and applied in a practically numeric order and which could only be learned by the use of a damn silly word game?

Never had to tap the bottom of the mags on that rifle. Unlike the M-16, the fit was so precise that no benefit could be derived by tapping so as to take up "slop" in fit to get the rifle to work right.
Let me take these in order.

Why would you not pull the charging handle to the rear & release it? (After you "Observe", you "Release the charging handle". That's the "R" in SPORTS, remember?)Is SPORTS too much to remember for you?

As for your aversion to tapping on the bottom of the magazine, what is your immediate action drill if shooting a pistol (or almost any magazine fed weapon)? (Myself, I tap the magazine & cycle the slide).

On your last point, you've missed it completely. You tap on the mag to ensure that it's seated before trying to chamber another round. Why? So that you don't waste time running a bolt over top of a mag that's not seated. (Yeah, I know you think I just helped your side of the argument). What is the main reason for having the mag not fully seated? Operator error, usually by somebody like you who feels that they know too much, that this is all "stupid", and that anything that goes wrong is the weapon's fault. "Slop" has nothing to do with it, unless you're talking about the operator that set it up incorrectly in the first place.

[ 06-24-2003, 16:34: Message edited by: Cold Bore ]
 
Posts: 2629 | Registered: 21 May 2002Reply With Quote
Cold Bore
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan:
Training us in that stupid drill [which included tapping on the bottom of the damn magazine no less] and its silly mnemonic was, to my thinking, tantamount to an admission by the Army that the M-16 was a truly f'ed up weapon.
No, what it IS, is an admission to reality. ANY weapon can jam or malfunction, at any time. What they were doing was training you how to take care of it in the least amount of time, and get back to business.

Do you honestly think that there is a weapon that is so reliable that it NEVER malfunctions, and therefore doesn't need immediate action drills/clearing procedures?
 
Posts: 2629 | Registered: 21 May 2002Reply With Quote
<Jordan>
posted
I did not intend to suggest that only poorly made rifles jam or malfunction. I was criticising the design of the M-16, as evidenced by the procedure necessary to clear the action when it becomes jammed. This procedure requires the manipulation of 3 different controls in 3 disparate locations on the rifle, which itself all but requires the soldier to twirl the rifle like a baton [ok, some hyperbole there] while simultaneously hugging the earth and under withering enemy fire. That this process is so complicated that the average soldier has to learn a word game to remember how to do it is, in and of itself ridiculous.

If all of this is evidence of a well designed combat weapon, then the criteria of "well designed" must mean the design so screwed up that it is the most likely to get the soldier killed trying to operate the weapon during that which you pointed out is inevitable---the jamming of the action.

I must say I was quite impressed with the M-16s that we all but melted down on full auto in the reserves. I can't recall a major problem with jamming when we were heating up these rifles. I know they did jam from time to time, especially when as they got hotter and in need of oil, but I do not have a recollection that this was especially problematic.

On the other hand, we were standing up. The guns were clean and it was dry. We were not rolling the guns around in the mud, Most important, when the rifles did jam, there were no enemy soldiers firing on us when we had to do the gymnastics required to clear the action.

Jordan
 
Reply With Quote
LZ
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan:
....I was criticising the design of the M-16, as evidenced by the procedure necessary to clear the action when it becomes jammed. This procedure requires the manipulation of 3 different controls in 3 disparate locations on the rifle....
Jordan
This is simply not true. The bolt catch will only lock the bolt (carrier assembly) open when there is an EMPTY magazine PROPERLY inserted in the rifle, AND the bolt is in the fully open position. The bolt catch on the M-16 basically functions the same way a slide release works, on most any semi-automatic pistol. It would normally not be necessary to manipulate this control at all, when dealing with a "jammed" weapon.

There is, of course, a separate control (foward assist) to aid in fully closing the bolt carrier assembly, if necessary.
 
Posts: 42 | Registered: 22 May 2003Reply With Quote
<Jordan>
posted
LZ. You are correct. Your description has refreshed my memory.

Jordan
 
Reply With Quote
<Jordan>
posted
With one caveat: in order to take the pressure of the bolt closed against or pressing against a jammed cartridge or misfeed, one must actuate the bolt catch on the left side. Correct?

Jordan
 
Reply With Quote
LZ
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan:
With one caveat: in order to take the pressure of the bolt closed against or pressing against a jammed cartridge or misfeed, one must actuate the bolt catch on the left side. Correct?

Jordan
Nope. I can not think of a "jammed weapon" situation (FTF or FTE) that would NORMALLY require using the bolt catch. However, if you wanted to LOCK THE BOLT OPEN (if, for instance, the case head separated, leaving a spent case stuck in the chamber [Eek!] ), then you would have to manipulate the bolt catch, if there was a magazine loaded with ammo in the rifle, or the magazine had been removed entirely from the rifle. But, as with any auto or semi-auto weapon, simply cycling the action will often clear the misfed round.

BTW, when clearing a jam, tapping the bottom of the magazine to ensure it is properly seated, is SOP with ANY weapon that uses a detachable magazine. Not just the M-16.

[ 06-25-2003, 05:44: Message edited by: LZ ]
 
Posts: 42 | Registered: 22 May 2003Reply With Quote
<Jordan>
posted
Jams come in all varieties. Clearing the action can require locking back the bolt, removing the magazine, reinserting the mag and releasing the bolt, stripping a fresh round into the chamber. That requires alot of manipulation of the rifle and its controls.

What is the source for your assertion that tapping the bottom of the magazine is "SOP" for clearing jams on other combat rifles?

Jordan
 
Reply With Quote
LZ
one of us
posted Hide Post
True. But those jams can happen to ANY rifle! And that is my whole point. An M-16 basically functions just like any other auto or semi-auto rifle. And the process for clearing a "jam" in an M-16 is basically the same as for any other rifle. A catastrophic failure (such as the afore mentioned case failure) in any rifle would require locking the bolt open. It really isn't any different.

As for tapping the magazine, I believe it is taught at every training facility that I am aware of (Front Sight, Chuck Taylor, etc.), not just in the military. I'll see if I can find a reference to it somewhere.
 
Posts: 42 | Registered: 22 May 2003Reply With Quote
Cal Sibley
one of us
posted Hide Post
This may be a bit out in right field and a case of sour grapes. There were two cartridges in competition for the new military round, the .223 and the .222Rem.Mag. The .222Rem.Mag was an accurate bugger as was the stepped up version based on the same case, the 6x47. Both were quite popular in Benchrest Competition. I had just had a rifle built on the .222Rem.Mag. It did and still prints .25" groups (5shots100yds). It was just slightly more powerful than the .223 which the military selected. It's my understanding the big wigs didn't give a damn about the caliber selected, they lusted after the Colt rifle that ultimately became the M-16. Supposedly the Remington offered rifle didn't handle a semi-automatic chambering very well.
The upshot of course is my caliber quickly became obsolete since nothing can compete with a rifle once it's selected as the national firearm. I'm still waiting to find a .223 which will outshoot my .222Rem.Mag. Haven't found one yet. Someone mentiond the military really wanted a 6mm. That's nonsense because both the .243Win. and the 6x47 already existed and would have been a heavier hitter than the .223. I recently saw a .14 caliber at a U.S. Marine exposition in Wash. D.C. What are we trying to do, tickle them to death? Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal
 
Posts: 1866 | Location: Montreal, Canada | Registered: 01 May 2003Reply With Quote
sonofagun
one of us
Picture of sonofagun
posted Hide Post
Whoa! You guys still going at this? Ok, Ok.

Just looked at a Rem 11-87 instruction book (typical traditional civilian auto-loader). The part attached to the side of the bolt with which you can manually cycle the bolt at any time is called the OPERATING handle. That's the term I should have used previously instead of "charging handle". With a semi-auto weapon, I want a handle DIRECTLY attached to the side of the bolt so I can DIRECTLY function the bolt at all times.
The M-16 (and its descendants still?) seems to lack this.

Let me ask the following: Let's say I'm standing on the line with the latest version of the 16; the bolt is closed (forward position) on an empty chamber and there is no magazine inserted. I now insert and lock in place a loaded magazine. Next I pull the "charging handle" fully to the rear and release. The weapon functions as designed, a round is chambered, and the weapon is ready to fire. Now, my question here is, if instead of firing the weapon I pull the charging handle fully to the rear again, what will happen? Will the bolt be opened and the chambered round ejected or not?

My memory tells me when I tried this years ago with an AR-15, nothing happened - the bolt remained closed and the round was not ejected (something you could do with any civilian autoloader) and thus my complaint. Does my memory serve me correctly on this and has this fault (as far as I'm concerned) been corrected?

This is the criticism I brought up. Enlighten me (gently please, I'm NOT trying to pick a fight here!). Just trying to clarify things.

Bottom line is I want to know: was/is the M-16 design as good, better, or worse in comparison to average civilian autoloader designs (including plain jane .22 automatics) in terms of functionality (a.k.a. "user friendliness")?

[ 06-27-2003, 04:07: Message edited by: sonofagun ]
 
Posts: 1946 | Location: Michigun | Registered: 23 May 2002Reply With Quote
sonofagun
one of us
Picture of sonofagun
posted Hide Post
And another thing...

Reading through all this lengthy discussion, it almost seems the only way to sort this all out would be if we could all meet for a day at a range with all the weapons in question and actually determine "hands on" what the *(&^%$# the problem is here and what we're arguing about?

Crap, suppose I'm wrong about this too!
 
Posts: 1946 | Location: Michigun | Registered: 23 May 2002Reply With Quote
TANSTAAFL
one of us
Picture of TANSTAAFL
posted Hide Post
It has been 18 years since I had to learn this but SPORTS applies to IMMEDIATE action and is accomplished while keeping the weak hand on the rifle. All steps are done with the strong hand while keeping the rifle pointed downrange and in the shoulder. Anything beyond this is REMEDIAL action and you can plan on being out of the fight for a few minutes. In my pistol training (military and civilian) we were taught to perform the same basic steps with any autoloading pistol.

The charging handle acts upon the bolt carrier, as such any time the handle is pulled the bolt will move, assuming the bolt is forward to begin with. Since the bolt carrier is not directly attached to the charging handle the latter will not move when the bolt carrier cycles during firing. The reason the M16 does not have a true operating handle (like most civilian autoloaders) is that such a handle would preclude the dust cover.

Admittedly the 5.56 leaves something to be desired in a combat round, but the 7.62x51 is not the answer. What is needed is something between the 2 with greater SD and weight than the SS109 round. It need not be as fast as the 5.56, in fact giving up some speed may well keep the round controllable in full-auto fire from the SAW. Personally I like the looks of a 6mm or 6.5mm based on the current 5.56 case at about 2800 fps.

Bob

[ 06-27-2003, 04:24: Message edited by: Gunny Bob ]
 
Posts: 361 | Location: Stevens Point, WI, USA | Registered: 20 June 2002Reply With Quote
Cold Bore
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sonofagun:
Let me ask the following: Let's say I'm standing on the line with the latest version of the 16; the bolt is closed (forward position) on an empty chamber and there is no magazine inserted. I now insert and lock in place a loaded magazine. Next I pull the "charging handle" fully to the rear and release. The weapon functions as designed, a round is chambered, and the weapon is ready to fire. Now, my question here is, if instead of firing the weapon I pull the charging handle fully to the rear again, what will happen? Will the bolt be opened and the chambered round ejected or not?

My memory tells me when I tried this years ago with an AR-15, nothing happened - the bolt remained closed and the round was not ejected (something you could do with any civilian autoloader) and thus my complaint. Does my memory serve me correctly on this and has this fault (as far as I'm concerned) been corrected?

This is the criticism I brought up. Enlighten me (gently please, I'm NOT trying to pick a fight here!). Just trying to clarify things.
OK, I'll be gentle. Promise. [Wink]

First off, you are incorrect.

Let me just turn it back to you a moment. Why would the bolt move to the rear, and return forward, when you pulled the charging handle the first time, but somehow fail to do it when you do the exact same operation again? There is no difference....

Also, going along with the bolt operating normally the first time & chambering a round, how would you unload the weapon if you didn't fire it?

Not a fight, just meant to "stimulate" your thought process and memory.
 
Posts: 2629 | Registered: 21 May 2002Reply With Quote
sonofagun
one of us
Picture of sonofagun
posted Hide Post
First, what am I incorrect about (be specific)?

Two, please answer my question: what will happen when I pull back (but not release) the charging handle the second time?

And Gunny, are you telling me that the bolt will come back (open) and the chambered, unfired round be ejected?

[ 06-27-2003, 06:39: Message edited by: sonofagun ]
 
Posts: 1946 | Location: Michigun | Registered: 23 May 2002Reply With Quote
TANSTAAFL
one of us
Picture of TANSTAAFL
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sonofagun:
First, what am I incorrect about (be specific)?

Two, please answer my question: what will happen when I pull back (but not release) the charging handle the second time?

And Gunny, are you telling me that the bolt will come back (open) and the chambered, unfired round be ejected?
Yes. When you pull back on the charging handle the bolt carrier will be pulled back also. This will unlock the bolt from the locking lugs, extract the round, and as the round clears the ejection port the ejector will eject it. At this point you can release the charging handle and chamber another round or push in on the bolt stop and lock the bolt carrier to the rear.

It is possible that there was something wrong with the rifle you tried, but I fail to see how it could have gone from Condition 3 (magazine inserted, chamber empty) to Condition 1 (magazine inserted, chamber loaded) simply by pulling on the charging handle and then have the charging handle not pull the bolt carrier (and thereby the bolt) on the next attempt. The charging handle is not directly attached to the bolt carrier so this can be confusing.

Picture this: the bolt carrier has a gas tube extension on the top of it; this extension goes through a hole in the nose of the charging handle and then over the gas tube itself at the very front of the upper receiver when the bolt is in battery (lugs are locked). Since the extension has a non-round portion (larger than the hole in the charging handle) and then bends down into the carrier it must be pulled back by the charging handle if the extension passes through it. Since the extension is of smaller diameter where it passes through the bolt carrier is allowed to move without pulling the charging handle back if acted upon by gasses coming through the gas tube.

I hope this helps your understanding.
Bob

[ 06-27-2003, 07:16: Message edited by: Gunny Bob ]
 
Posts: 361 | Location: Stevens Point, WI, USA | Registered: 20 June 2002Reply With Quote
LZ
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sonofagun:

.....Now, my question here is, if instead of firing the weapon I pull the charging handle fully to the rear again, what will happen? Will the bolt be opened and the chambered round ejected or not?....

....Does my memory serve me correctly on this and has this fault (as far as I'm concerned) been corrected?....

1. Yes. The bolt WILL open, and the chambered round WILL be ejected. Honest. I promise it works this way. EVERY time you pull the charging handle, the bolt opens. And EVERY time you release the charging handle, the recoil buffer(spring) causes the bolt to close. Just like the bolt on your shotgun.

2. No. Your memory does NOT serve you correctly. It has NEVER been a fault. The bolt and charging handle has ALWAYS worked this way.

I truly wish there was to demonstrate this to you. I am NOT asking you to LIKE the M-16. To each his own! I would simply like you to understand that the bolt assembly, and the charging handle on the M-16, basically works the same as on any other auto/semi-auto rifle.

Really.
I promise.
Honest.
It does.
 
Posts: 42 | Registered: 22 May 2003Reply With Quote
<Jordan>
posted
No, it does not. While it is true, every time you pull ack the charging handle on a closed bolt, the bolt will also be retracted. But the M-16 bolt can be held open by the bolt stop on the left side of the action and while thus held back, the charging handle can be stowed [moved forward and locked]. Now, try this on an HK 91 [or a Rem 11-87]. In fact, is there any semi automatic rifles out there [not just assault rifles] where the bolt/charging handle is not positively attached to the bolt so that if can be used to move the bolt front or rear at any time? I don't think so. The charging handle on the M-16 is a very, very different creature from anything else I am aware of. It is not positively affixed to the bolt.

And there remains the problem of multiple controls all over the rifle....but I digress. I think we'll all have to just agree to disagree...

Jordan
 
Reply With Quote
Cold Bore
one of us
posted Hide Post
A few problems with a handle attached to the bolt. First, if it is on the side (i.e. M-1 Garand, M-14, 11-87), it is rather awkward for a left handed shooter to operate. Possible yes, but somebody is concerned that the *M-16* is too complicated for them...

If you have a design that is ambidextrious (on top), you have an exposed piece of metal flying back & forth inches in front of your face.

Lastly, it is exposed & more susceptible to being broken off.

One more thing... if the HK 91 is a superior design, why does this guy want to trade his for an AR-15? http://www.azarms.com/_disc10/0000005d.htm [Big Grin] [Wink]
 
Posts: 2629 | Registered: 21 May 2002Reply With Quote
LZ
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan:
...The charging handle on the M-16 is a very, very different creature from anything else I am aware of. It is not positively affixed to the bolt....

Jordan
Correct. It IS constructed differently. No one is denying that. At least I am not. But it ACCOMPLISHES THE SAME THING. That is what I mean when I say it is basically the same as any other auto-loader. Pull the charging handle, and the bolt opens. Release the charging handle, and the spring causes the bolt to slam shut. How is that any different from a Rem. 11-87 or an M-1? And why would anyone consider that to be a fault? It works, even though it is constructed differently. If you don't LIKE it, then just say so. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But please don't say it is defective just because you don't LIKE the different type of construction.

As for the ergonomics of the M-16, well I think they are quite good. It sure seems easier to lock the bolt open on the M-16 than the AK-47...at least to me. But that doesn't mean that the AK-47 is a defective weapon. It is just my preference. Certainly you are entitled to your preference also [Smile] .

Good shooting.

[ 06-27-2003, 19:32: Message edited by: LZ ]
 
Posts: 42 | Registered: 22 May 2003Reply With Quote
BECoole
one of us
posted Hide Post
The M16 is not the only rifle that has a charging hadle/operating handle that is not "part" of the bolt or bolt carrier. The FAL is like that too. It just has a little stud that engages the carrier. The M1/M14 is like that also. It's charging handle is connected to a protrusion on the bolt. Sometimes it comes off when you are firing it. Sometimes it comes off when it is jammed and you are trying to force the action open. I've never seen the charging handle come off an M16.
 
Posts: 539 | Registered: 14 February 2003Reply With Quote
sonofagun
one of us
Picture of sonofagun
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sonofagun:
And another thing...

Reading through all this lengthy discussion, it almost seems the only way to sort this all out would be if we could all meet for a day at a range with all the weapons in question and actually determine "hands on" what the *(&^%$# the problem is here and what we're arguing about?

Crap, suppose I'm wrong about this too!
MAYBE NOT!! [Confused]
 
Posts: 1946 | Location: Michigun | Registered: 23 May 2002Reply With Quote
BECoole
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sonofagun:
And another thing...

Reading through all this lengthy discussion, it almost seems the only way to sort this all out would be if we could all meet for a day at a range with all the weapons in question and actually determine "hands on" what the *(&^%$# the problem is here and what we're arguing about?

Crap, suppose I'm wrong about this too!
S.O.G.
I'll take you to the range anytime you make it to my neighborhood. I'll even buy you a box each of 223, 308, 7.62x39 and 30-06 for you to try. Then we can sort out a beer. [Smile]

[ 06-27-2003, 23:17: Message edited by: BECoole ]
 
Posts: 539 | Registered: 14 February 2003Reply With Quote
Jacobite
one of us
posted Hide Post
No, it does not. While it is true, every time you pull ack the charging handle on a closed bolt, the bolt will also be retracted. But the M-16 bolt can be held open by the bolt stop on the left side of the action and while thus held back, the charging handle can be stowed [moved forward and locked]. Now, try this on an HK 91 [or a Rem 11-87]. In fact, is there any semi automatic rifles out there [not just assault rifles] wNo, it does not. While it is true, every time you pull ack the charging handle on a closed bolt, the bolt will also be retracted. But the M-16 bolt can be held open by the bolt stop on the left side of the action and while thus held back, the charging handle can be stowed [moved forward and locked]. Now, try this on an HK 91 [or a Rem 11-87]. In fact, is there any semi automatic rifles out there [not just assault rifles] where the bolt/charging handle is not positively attached to the bolt so that if can be used to move the bolt front or rear at any time? I don't think so. The charging handle on the M-16 is a very, very different creature from anything else I am aware of. It is not positively affixed to the bolt.

The charging handle of H&K weapons are not attached to the bolt. It rides freely in the charging tube. It works opposite of the AR. It pushs the bolt back, not pulls and there is no way to push the bolt forward if the round fails to fully chamber. The charging handle is up near the front of the weapon and a pain in the arse to get to and is open allowing all kinds of dirt to enter. But everyone thinks that design is great. I am very new to all Military weapons but have no trouble with my AR. Keep it clean. One of the worst jams I ever had was with a Winchester pump action shotgun. Had just crawled through a jagger patch to set up on a turkey. Action got mud and grass in it. Could not get the second round to chamber, no how no way. Had to break the whole gun down to clear it. So being able to Manually operate the bolt is NOT the solution to every jam. As for caliber, I would have chose the .222 Rem. Mag. over the .223 but would have looked for even a larger cal. like say the 250 Savage.

BTW the Russians are having very good sucess with the 5.45x39. It is also bullet design not caliber that makes stopping power. From the wound channals I have seen from test studys I don't want STUNG by that little round.
 
Posts: 622 | Location: PA. U.S.A. | Registered: 12 May 2002Reply With Quote
XWind
one of us
posted Hide Post
Maybe an AR-15 can come in handy with the right upper: [Big Grin]

-

This is a .50 cal BMG conversion from Ferret50.com
 
Posts: 203 | Location: North Georgia | Registered: 23 December 2002Reply With Quote
sonofagun
one of us
Picture of sonofagun
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sonofagun:
Bottom line is I want to know: was/is the M-16 design as good, better, or worse in comparison to average civilian autoloader designs (including plain jane .22 automatics) in terms of functionality (a.k.a. "user friendliness")?
 
Posts: 1946 | Location: Michigun | Registered: 23 May 2002Reply With Quote
Edmond
One of Us
posted Hide Post
"posted by LZ
It sure seems easier to lock the bolt open on the M-16 than the AK-47..."

there is nothing to lock the bolt open on any AK....
 
Posts: 157610 | Location: Ukraine, Europe. | Registered: 12 October 2002Reply With Quote
LZ
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Edmond:
[QB...there is nothing to lock the bolt open on any AK....[/QB]
[Wink]
 
Posts: 42 | Registered: 22 May 2003Reply With Quote
120mm
one of us
posted Hide Post
Sorry for being gone so long, had to find a way to hack the army "anti-gun filter" to get back on-list.

First, the AR series of rifles initially had a cocker/bolt carrier handle affixed to the bolt carrier group. In fact, it was located inside that nifty handle on top of the upper, and that nifty "carrying" handle doubled (or was intended) as a guard to prevent little fingers from being snagged when it whizzed back and forth. You can buy an AR-10 today that still has one.

Second, reference 5.56 power as a cartridge. Day before yesterday, I saw a soldier hit in the forearm, just next to his elbow by a 5.56 round. Blew his arm <OFF>. I'm talking pieces of meat and bone all over the place. Dude is lucky there was a medic right there, he was working on bleeding to death right there.

I know it's neat to fantasize about the ideal weapon system, but a new, third caliber of rifle round wouldn't help things, logistically. It would almost be easier to by AR-10s for situations like Afghanistan than it would be to convert to a "medium" cartridge.
 
Posts: 1128 | Location: Iowa, dammit! | Registered: 09 May 2003Reply With Quote
Tony Williams
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 120mm:

Second, reference 5.56 power as a cartridge. Day before yesterday, I saw a soldier hit in the forearm, just next to his elbow by a 5.56 round. Blew his arm <OFF>. I'm talking pieces of meat and bone all over the place. Dude is lucky there was a medic right there, he was working on bleeding to death right there.
I don't doubt that the 5.56mm can produce spectacular results. The problem is that there is plenty of evidence to show that it can't be relied on to do this; it all depends on where it hits, the range etc. For each account of an instant kill or devastating wound, there are several complaints about multiple hits apparently having little immediate effect.

quote:

I know it's neat to fantasize about the ideal weapon system, but a new, third caliber of rifle round wouldn't help things, logistically. It would almost be easier to by AR-10s for situations like Afghanistan than it would be to convert to a "medium" cartridge.
Well, SOCOM are reportedly working on a new 6.8mm cartridge based on the .25 Rem case diameter, sized to fit the M16 action. They're doing this because of dissatisfaction with 5.56mm performance. If this is successful, what's the betting on it eventually taking over from the 5.56mm?

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
 
Posts: 238 | Location: Derbyshire, UK | Registered: 24 May 2002Reply With Quote
120mm
one of us
posted Hide Post
Well, SOCOM can do pretty much what it wants, but... It may make more logistical sense to go .308 in something. I, personally, wouldn't mind seeing a medium caliber introduced as a special first, and then possibly "phased-in" as a new main-line cartridge, but none of the long-term developmental types are looking that direction, right now. Maybe a strong Army Chief with SOCOM ties may be able to ram-rod it, though.
 
Posts: 1128 | Location: Iowa, dammit! | Registered: 09 May 2003Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3  
 


Copyright December 1997-2023 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia

 

image linking to 100 Top Hunting Sites