The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Military & Military Surplus M-16 a piece of Shit?Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| M-16 a piece of Shit? | Login/Join |
| one of us |
Hello; I just read the newspaper account of the six Americans captured by the Iraquis in the early days of the war. In it, they relay how they were captured and nine of their buddies were killed during a firefight, when all their M-16s jammed because of sand fouling. The obvious question is if the M-16 is really a suitable military rifle and how did it stack up to the British SAR 80 ? Neither of these weapons has ever been used in any war, where there was ever any real opposition and one has to wonder what would happen if they ever faced any serious opponent. Griz | ||
|
one of us |
quote:Saga of the M16 in Vietnam That should partly answer your question. | |||
|
| one of us |
I think the original post may have overlooked the Viet Nam war and will get the benefit of the doubt. It depends on when you start the clock but the M-16 was the main battle rifle for the U.S troops somewhere between '62 and '65. So even if you take 1965 through 1975 that's a 10 year run of highly questionable results with that rifle. The original gun had no forward assist (major fubar), no brass deflector for those poor lefties and no dust cover for the receiver, a questionable gas system to name a few shortcomings. This rifle was issued to a fighting force that was entrenched in a a jungle terrain with no front, side or middle. Yet the constant malfunctions that caused the loss of countless warriors was blamed on poor cleaning practices. Bad start for the career of this rifle and frankly inexcusable. The advantages were primarily limited to the CAR-15 and the ability to 'one-hand' the lightweight rifle firing the infamous 5.56 NATO but still made a poor bayonette handle and an even worse club. Fast forward another 16-17 years and the SpecOps team deep in Iraq Rescuing pilots, illuminating mobile SCUD launchers and gathering intel chose, in many cases, the M-14 as they had no time for jacking with a rifle that would rather jam, misfire, fail to feed, fail to extract etc etc than do the job that needed to be done. So when the elite troops that could carry anything they wanted went with a M-14 over a 30 year old M-16, that spoke volumes. I'm not a fan of the M-16 or variants so my bias may be evident but facts is facts. XWind | |||
|
one of us |
Well... the M-16, it does shit where it eats. | |||
|
one of us |
i think that article on the early m16 is really telling i especially like the comparisons in muzzle energy. I think the m16 was a big mistake it was one of Macnamara's many many fubars. when this little dumbass dies he will have the lives of thousand of soldiers on his head and so will LBJ. not becuase of the m16 but plenty of other blunders. I think the 308 was and is the best military cartridge. heck maybe the russians figured it out better than we did with the 7.62 x39 i know i would rather be firing this than the 223. maybe a 6.5x39 cartridge would be ideal. it was funny today i was watching a vietnam special forces show and back then it shows alot of our guys using AK's the reason behind the 223 is that most fighting supposedly happens under 200yards well isn't this distance better suited to the 7.62x39??? | |||
|
| One of Us |
RandyWakeman; Thank you for the link. I have just spent about an hour or so reading over some of the articles . Carpe Ductum!lol derF | |||
|
| One of Us |
Happy to have found some experts, I have a marking's ID problem with one. any idea about it? http://www.gunboards.com/forums/UltraBoard.cgi?action=Read&BID=12&TID=1255&SID=637996 | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum | |||
|
| one of us |
Any of you posters actually use an M-16 in combat? No? Then I guess all the info you are posting is second/third/fourth hand. If anyone here has a CIB, then I'll listen, but not before. | |||
|
| <Eric> |
I've never fired a shot in anger from an M-16 though I've been in uniform now for three wars and many, many "peace keeping" actions. The first was Vietnam. Never been invited. That is either a good, or bad thing. Depends on your point of view. I have however used the "Mattel" for over 18 years in countless training missions, both blank and live ammo. It has always worked for me, except for the occassional bum magazine. It will work with some sand in it, as well as some mud, just not as well. Been there, done that. Is it the best available, well, no. Because nothing, NOTHING around is always the best available. Stuff changes, terrain and tactics change. I repeat, nothing is the best for all circumstances. My M-4 carbine is accurate to 300 meters with my old eyes. It has worked full of swamp water and moss. I just miss "Rock and Roll." When the buggers are coming through the door, I want to empty the magazine. Regards, Eric | ||
|
| one of us |
The biggest problem with the M16 that I saw was that the Army loves to over clean and underlube firearms. I never had any trouble with my rifles, and I noticed that the firearms that did malfunction were always in the hands of the same people. Worst I ever saw was in basic training, the weapon had failed completely, wouldn't fire at all. I opened it up, and it was completely full of wet sticky sand. It has never occured to the soldier that it might cause problems, and I haven't got the slightest clue how it got in there. Mine was fine! | |||
|
| one of us |
Edmond... isn't that an Israeli crest? Eric Ansgar... your never going to hear one side, because it depends on the user. Example, a good frind of mine says he never had any problems with his (early model too, no forward assist). BUT... he was also a lifetime hunter/shooter, so he knew how to take care of his stuff and it was always clean. Probably why he had no problems. Joe Shmo who never cleaned it till it jammed on the other hand... would obviousely have a bad opinion of it. | |||
|
| <KBGuns> |
Something that works 90% of the time is not reliable. However there would be a lot of people who never had problems themselves or seen other have them. The AR15 action is probly the best gas operated design for shooting .5 or.25 MOA groups. It is not the best design for shooting all day, every day, without fail. Kristofer | ||
|
| One of Us |
quote:Any link to a logo like this one ? I heard many opinions but nothing yet to back them. | |||
|
| one of us |
Actually... i was thinking of the IAF logo... the markings on the receiver has an anchor at the bottom, doesn't it? Me thinks the boys are right. Looks like it might be S.A.D.F. [ 04-23-2003, 18:39: Message edited by: cas ] | |||
|
| one of us |
I ran 500-800 rounds through an m-16 within 1/2 hour or less without cleaning it several times. When it got muddy I rinsed the gun in water, then cleared the bore. The only time I had a problem was when I was shooting some tracer ammo and it must have been underloaded, as I'd fire one round jam, clear, fire another round jam etc. went back to ball ammo in short order. The problem I saw most with rifle failures were worn sears (seldom), cracked gas tubes(fairly often) and DIRTY rifles (all the time). If your rifle was clean and in good repair, it worked period. | |||
|
| new member |
'Keep it clean'. Therein lies the problem. Crud entering the action is not a matter of co-incidence, its a matter of design. In order to function, it HAS to spew gas/fouling back into the action. | |||
|
| one of us |
The opinions people have of anything, rifles included is based on a variety of reasons. Why do some prefer Fords over Chevys? Budweiser over Coors? Blondes over Brunettes? The 'facts'? seems to be that after Stoner was contracted to develop a small caliber lighweight '<7 lbs' , select fire weapon he arrived at what is a rather admirable design. The military didn't just say 'That's Cool Looking, Let's Buy Some'. These rifles were put through standard acceptance testing including operation in sand, mud etc. The rifle performed very well and beat the M-14 in three simple areas 1) Lighter 2)Less Muzzle Climb during Automatic Fire and 3) Lighter Ammo. That's it...Lighter because of the use of polymers 'plastic' and castings. Less muzzle climb, .308 vs .223 ...yea ok. Lighter ammo, same as before .308 vs .223. These three aspects and McNamara's politicking resulted in the first two orders for M-16's being submitted by the Airforce and the Navy. The momentum was now unstoppable and the rifle eventually was issued in basic training and then the 'in country' M-14s were eventually replaced. M-16s were everywhere and performing well. Now in approximately 1965-1966 there were so many complaints about the rifle malfunctioning a Congessional Hearing was finally ordered. The first knee jerk reaction was that the rifle's that were exchanged 'in country' did not come with the proper cleaning kit particularly a chamber brush, nor did those that had their M-14's taken and handed M-16's get proper training on how to clean their weapon. Well this went over like a lead balloon and the hearing continued. Even Stoner was brought into an unusually casual hearing and asked to give some input toward the complaints against 'his' rifle. Well to keep a long story as short as possible it turns out that the majority of failures occuring during this period of '65-'66 were isolated to extraction failures and many dead soldiers 'RIP' were found with cleaning rods down the muzzle trying to shove the spent shell out as that was the only way to clear it. When this happens often enough a reputation is developed that the M-16 is still trying to shake off today. What happened was the military ordnance folks had went against Stoners spec and instead of using the IMR extruded powder they tried to use a ball powder with a different speed curve. By changing only this variable they increased the cycling rate of the M-16 by about 200 rounds per minute, increased port pressure changing the timing of the weapon resulting in trying to extract a round that still carried too much pressure and was firmly clinging to the chamber walls. They tried to fix it by diddling with the buffer system but made it worse....the reputation was growing. Finally after listening to Stoner they were convinced that the weapon could only fire IMR extruded powders, new ammo was produced, old ammo was used up or exchanged and the failures to extract began to drop to 'statistically acceptable levels'. The reputation now had a life of it's own in some quarters and there were GIs, fire teams, squads etc that had long since picked up an AK or an M-14 and the explanation given for this kept the reputation growing. So when the designer of a firearm tells you to only use a certain powder due to it's burn characteristics...may want to listen. The M-16 is loved by many but that 'reputation' is still out there and all it takes is one 'AW SH*T' to cancel out a million 'ATTABOYS'. Now about those gas tubes.... Cheers, XWind Note: Edited to correct cycling rate error from seconds to minutes...ooops [ 04-25-2003, 01:00: Message edited by: XWind ] | |||
|
| one of us |
Besides it shitting where it eats, it is an odd design. Multi splined rotary bolts and muck and mud are not friends. But s far as odd design, you can get both bolt over base, and base over bolt jams. Most guns get one or the other. | |||
|
| <KBGuns> |
quote:You misunderstand me. I am not saying the AR can not work, or will not work. The AR design does indeed have strong points, highest among them is an ability to be made extremely accuracurate. For an ultra precise SLR, I think the AR design is best. For a combat rifle it is not best, its absolute reliabity is not up to the challenge. Kristofer [ 04-24-2003, 09:26: Message edited by: KBGuns ] | ||
|
| one of us |
KB Guns... "I was not there (Vietnam)" ![[Roll Eyes]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif){kind=icon} enough said... your info is at least second hand. Earn a CIB and let me know first hand. I am tired of people crapping all over the M-16 with no first hand knowledge of using the rifle in combat. I also shot the AK and SKS and found them fine weapons too, especially the eastern european ones where the receivers were actually milled and not just stamped. They too however would jam when they were dirty or full of mud and'or sand. | |||
|
| one of us |
Well.... I wasn't in Vietnam... but I've had mine malfunction plenty at the range, and seen many many more malfunction for all manner of reason. I can only assume that a war would not make it function any BETTER. [ 04-25-2003, 04:45: Message edited by: cas ] | |||
|
| <KBGuns> |
quote:I am not crapping all over the M16. I said I do not think it is the best. Read my posts. As far comabt experiance, I know a few vets. I know where they were and what they did. I know what they think of the M16. Your info is as second hand to me as any of theirs. I sould take your word for the M16s? It must have an entirely undeserved bad rep, but now a file clerk(or what ever) from veitnem has told me different. Reguarding AKs, anything will jam eventually, if you jam its reciever full of crap, AKs just take more and go longer. You brought up AKs. I do not think the AK and AR are even compairible. Count you self lucky, your M16 never let you down. Your experiance does not mean the M16 is perfect, nor the best. Far too many had/have problems with theirs. Also the M16s design has characteristics that prevent it from ever being the optimal assualt rilfe design. Read what I post. Not the imaginary rantings you make up in your head and acredit to me. And yes my posts are my opinions. Just like your posts are just your opinion. If you do not like opinion, I sugest you stay of the internet. Kristofer [ 04-25-2003, 06:09: Message edited by: KBGuns ] | ||
|
| One of Us |
quote:Right , an anchor . any link to those armed forces logos | |||
|
| one of us |
No, not really, but you can do a Google image search and come up with a few. | |||
|
| <dfaugh> |
OK..first,and foremost, this is second hand knowledge, but VERY creditable nonetheless. I had many buddies in "the Land Of Bad Things" ('Nam), mostly marines, including some Force Recon guys (a few of which never made it back) all of which were in the thick of things...At that time, to a man, they despised the M-16...Most tried/suceeded in obtaining M-14s, and if possible snagged a few AKs along the way. Besides reliability issues (OK, you gotta keep it clean, but that's possibly problematic in the midst of a firefight during the monsoon season!)they also were very dissapointed with the results of the ammo, i.e. it wasn't very effective at stopping the enemy, unless you hit "just so" (also hard to do when you're taking fire). Now, in talking to current military people (some Desert Storm vets including)the newer versions are greatly improved, but some reliability issues still exist(under adverse conditions)...and there's still issues with "stopping power" (Read Black Hawk Down). So, were it me (strictly my opinion, no flames please!)I would really rather NOT go into a combat situation with one of these things. Gladly sclep the extra weight of an M-14, L1A1, or whatever with plenty of (far more powerful)ammo. However, that's not a choice for our military boys, so kinda a moot point. It's probably a good "compromise" weapon, and should be viewed as such. Also, my understanding is that most "teams" have guys with other "specialized" weapons for those occasions where the M-16 is not the best choice. Also, fortunately, as we've seen in Afganistan and Iraq, the face of war has changed (much for the better of our troops)since 'Nam. Not alot of firefights...You find a batch of the enemy, call in arty or air, and "poof" they're gone. So the standard issue rifle is much less important than it once was. However, those few guys that HAVE been involved in firefights might disagree! | ||
|
| one of us |
During my military training in the 90:ies, we got the opportunity to try weapons used by presumable enemies. Among them were the M16A2 (I think that's the correct name for the .223 cal version). The most striking difference from the AK-47 and the FN carbine was the diameter of the gas piston. The ~6 mm piston of the M16 looked really small in comparison with the ~15 mm d.os in other weapons. As we all could see, the result of this was that the M16 jammed once in a while due to ice buildup in the gas cylinder during firing pauses. I guess that the same thing is possible in the desert, when sand inevitably enters the weapon. | |||
|
| <JOHAN> |
quote:The great thing about the M-16 is the ergonomics of it. All the buttons are in the right place, but they should have made a more reliable fireing pin construction that stikes the primer harder and solved the gas handeling in a different way. My favorites are SIG 551 or FN FNC. A perfect clone would to take the ergonomics of the M-16 and clone it with the others. My all time favorite is the FN FAL, I just hope that some one would make it 223 with a proper mag well ![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif){kind=icon} / JOHAN | ||
|
| one of us |
Eric Ansgar.....love the way you think...hang in there..... | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Hmmm, I'm an armorer, but I guess I've been doing my job wrong all these years. Never once have I been able to find a gas piston, of any size or diameter, in an M-16..... | |||
|
| <KBGuns> |
quote:Agreed, to me the M16/AR15 has a controll lay out far superior to any other rifle ever made. Every controll is where it should be. Which is one of the reasons I do not like bullpup designs, be way of the design they can not have the controls in thr right place. Kristofer | ||
|
| one of us |
[/qb][/QUOTE]Hmmm, I'm an armorer, but I guess I've been doing my job wrong all these years. Never once have I been able to find a gas piston, of any size or diameter, in an M-16.....[/QB][/QUOTE] Then what do you call the tiny thing that opens the mechanism after each round has been fired? No wonder their weapons jam... | |||
|
| One of Us |
Then what do you call the tiny thing that opens the mechanism after each round has been fired? a gas tube that brings direct adduction of gas to the bolt carrier key in order to move the bolt carrier rearward hence allowing the bolt lugs to rotate counterclockwise to unlock. derived from swedish AG42B itself derived from a french prototype of 1912 , the Meunier rifle. Direct gas adduction system: this concept was used in french semi rifles, the most know been MAS 38,39, 40 & 44 almost unknow to the general public. the most known:MAS 49 and 49/56 http://www.gunboards.com/forums/UltraBoard.cgi?action=Read&BID=14&TID=7344&SID=823460 There are generally no bad weapons, only bad shooters or badly trained soldiers.... [ 04-30-2003, 11:20: Message edited by: Edmond ] | |||
|
| one of us |
Could I really be remembering that wrong?! I have a clear, distinct picture of something tiny running inside an equally tiny cylinder. I'm quite familiar with the gas-twist-lock principle, but things just don't quite add up for me. What tranfers the gas force to the bolt carrier if there are no piston of some kind? I'm convinced that I'm wrong, so you don't have to argue with me. After all, ten years is a long time. Just explain. Use the Ak-47 as a reference. The fact still remains: The M16A2 jammed more often i cold weather than did the AK-47 and the FN-Ak. [ 04-30-2003, 13:19: Message edited by: Olimahtes ] | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:The gas bleeds off through a small hole in the barrel at the front sight. It "runs" through the gas tube, which goes from the front sight, under the handguards, into the top front of the upper receiver. The end of it mates up with the carrier key, which is the hollow dogleg looking thing on top of the bolt carrier. From there it vents down into the carrier, against the rear section of the bolt itself. There is no piston of any kind (unlike an M-14 for instance), simply gas pressure. A simpler system (no piston, op rod, gas cylinder, etc), with less moving parts, less weight, and no piston to seize. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Interesting. The way cas thinks is interesting enough for me. And convincing. | |||
|
| Moderator |
What are the major functional design differences bewteen the M16A2 and the "new" M4? The original SA80 earned itself a bad reputation much in the same way as the original M16 did. I am fairly certain that the original SA80 was adopted for service without ever having passed a "sand test" for instance and there was much disquiet about various aspects of it performance in the field. However, H&K's recent upgrade should have cured most if not all of the problems; I guess we will have to wait for feed back from the troops returning from Iraq to see what the tructh is. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:The question was: How does the gas work on the bolt and the bolt carrier?. As I understand it from your description, the bolt is opened with a "gas puff" on directly on the bolt and the bolt carrier. Interesting... Despite the fact that I was wrong about what caused the M16 to malfunction repeatedly that cold winter day, I maintain that it is less reliable in cold conditions than main armaments used by other armies. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:So far so good. See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/SA80.htm Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | 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 |