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 |
quote:Shorter barrel, flat top upper (usually mounted with optics), collapsible stock. Everything operates the same, lower receiver & innards are the same, etc. Myself, I'll take the A2. | |||
|
| one of us |
I've been away a couple of days... Bill Smith - Thanks! KB, you seem to me to be a young man of 25 years who reads WAY too many gun magazines and by doing so, thinks themselves to be an expert. As for opinions, I have no problem with those contrary to my own - as long as they are INFORMED - so get a towel and dry behind your ears before you post, not just about m-16s, but 'most anything - OK? FYI I was an RA combat engineer for 20 months, and then worked as an armorer for a state national guard unit for 4 years. I don't consider myself an expert - yet, but I do have resonably informed opinions. In the future, I hope you demonstrate some better manners than yelling at people and telling them to get off the internet. | |||
|
| one of us |
Having carried an M-16 and shot a lot of other weapons such as the M1A1,Fal, BM59 etc I'd pick the M16A2 in a M203 anyday. To me the best of all posssible worlds. | |||
|
| new member |
Mr Ansgar. I'm confused. You seem to be using the word 'informed' in place of 'experienced'. You require people to be 'informed', yet deprecate other's 'informed'-ness on the basis of comparable experience or lack thereof. | |||
|
| One of Us |
quote:the most stupid reaction I got from somebody of the land of Krag 1903 was a Mauser design with royalties paid until 1917. Garand was a canadian designer... | |||
|
| one of us |
Edmond, I take your response to mean that you are as embarrassed by the Chauchat as we are by the M16. Cheer up! Everybody makes a mistake once in a while. We do not claim to be immune to this. After all, what are low-numbered Springfields? | |||
|
| One of Us |
Recono, you can say that but the Chauchat was really welcome in the trenches even with all the drawbacks. my grandfather was happy to get one. and at least it inspired the concept of the Browning BAR. and finally it was WW1. from what I know the AR 15 as designed by Stoner was perfect.. I used an AR 10 for a while and found it a wonderful, powerful , accurate tool. OK, my size is above the average european, as one of my american buddies , a green beret, told me on a fire course , you move like an american football player. LOL something that may interest you: http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/2100/2137.htm . ![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif){kind=icon} [ 05-02-2003, 21:18: Message edited by: Edmond ] | |||
|
| <KBGuns> |
People with low tolerance to sarcasm should not read this post: quote:Absolutely correct Eric. The M16 does not now, nor has it ever had any problems. It is all just a lie to descredit the first perfect firearm in hystory. Which from its first day has had no short comings. Also all its decedents are just as perfect as it. No problems with the M4. Its just a vast media conspriracy. Further, since it is a perfect design and requires no discussion of its good verses bad points, as already mentioned it has no bad points. Especially discusion on internet firearms discussion forums, that is no place for this topic. Did I get it right, sir? Don't go PTSD on my arse. BTW, if I was going by what gun mags have to say, I would be agreeing with you. Gun mags are trash, long advertisements they get you to pay for. quote:I recall the Krag being a Norwegian design. We should have stole the Mauser design, the 1903 being a half assed copy, but it still works and well. The USA has a long history of getting weapons design slightly wrong, or worse. Especially when copying an already perfect designs. Shure, he was working for the Canadians too. Thats why he was employed the US Ordanance Dept, Canada just being a terrortory of the USA. Although I think so Canadians may disagre with your view, Edmond. Besides I do not think the Garand Rifle was the last word in rifle design, if it was we would still use them. Then again maybe we are, I have heard that the troops in Afganastan are asking for or are already using M1 Garands(can any one confirm this?). There are surely bad gun designs. That you would blame it on end users, makes me think you are an enginer. Enginers never design anything poorly. Its the dumb asses in the world who give a perfectly-perfect designs bad names, am I right? Soldiers can not take care of thier guns, or use them properly. Its a miracle Eric made it back, with the morons he had to fight with, luckily he had the BEST WEAPON EVER, THE M16, WHICH HAS NO PROBLEMS, EVER. EVER. Kristofer [ 05-02-2003, 05:54: Message edited by: KBGuns ] | ||
|
one of us |
Kb,eric,and,edmond,I personally invite you all to woodbine md. to buy you all a round at the local watering hole,and discuss this matter further in person!Never been in combat,military would'nt take me due to bone problem,least I tried to get in I guess. ![[Confused]](images/icons/confused.gif){kind=icon} I do have a couple ar's,one holds my only win @600 yds.[a2 config.].I've seen a bunch of people shooting everything from spaceguns to garands pack it in early due to rifle failures.Never seen a boltgunner have to though[perfect rifle?].I myself allways bring a back-up piece.Is the m-16 a p.o.s.? I don't think so but,,opinions are like assholes,everyone has one,,,, | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Thanks; interesting site! I dropped in on a thread on revolver versus auto, just where I left off reading gun mags in the '60's . Not sure whether you were serious, but possibly the AR15 designed by Stoner was perfect. However, it was fielded without cleaning gear, and it DOES shit where it eats, so you DO have be concerned what it eats. I kind of like them, myself, but I never got around to buying one when they still weighed about five pounds. I don't think I'd want to bet my life on one. Then again, I wouldn't want to bet my life on ONE of anything, especially if it's not a revolver. | |||
|
| One of Us |
my 3 favorite rifles , FAMAS, SIG 90, M16 A2 + one : AK be it 47, 56 or 74. I shot for a long period of time both FAMAS and M16 and when asked wich one I would keep if only allowed to one, I answered a SIG 90 that I shoot since it appeared too. they have all advantages and drawbacks. the A1 version of the M16 as well as the civilian AR 15 SP 1 wre really not accurate and very average up to 200 meters; the A2 changed everything and many years after dumping the old one, I tried the A2 and found it accurate between 300 and 600 meters. reliabilty is better with FAMAS, no direct gas adduction fouling the system, accurate and compact. the swiss 90 is the most accurate of my 3 favorite rifles and reliability is simply perfect, what do you expect from Switzerland. the M16 is the most demanding in terms of maintenance. AK family is the less demanding, I practiced it a lot http://www.gunboards.com/forums/UltraBoard.cgi?action=Read&BID=12&TID=1114&SID=736049 finally, it all depends on where you go with them. But please do not base your opinion on magazines or one or two single reports of somebody said to have used them for real... I read so many BS... | |||
|
| new member |
the early failures of the m16 were due to the fact that the barrel and chamber were not chrome plated . the guy in charge at the army arsenal wanted to chrome plate them and mcnamarra would not allow it he said if it needed it Stoner would included chrome plating in the design. the gentelman that mentioned the changes in newer gun missed the most important one, the a4s have a 1in 8 or 1in9 twist rate, the old ones had 1in12 , this was to make the heavier bullets stabilize ( they went from 50 and 52 to some thing in the 60s, more stopping power and better long range accuracy. ebb | |||
|
| one of us |
HI, I have been looking at many different sites about the AR15 or M16. I have a AR15, it is very reliable, this brings me to my answer the only problems that I hear with the AR/ m16 is caliber and reliablity. the reliability question I think is BS or is overrated. The caliber is to small, when the up grade in this weapon occurs, I think a 6.8 mm, this will kill all the arguements. Thanks,Kev | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:I'd be interested to hear a user's view of the FAMAS. M-16s, SA80s, AKs, even AUGs get analyzed to death, but I've never heard much about the French gun. Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum | |||
|
| one of us |
Guys, I find it interesting that some would not accept solid experience ... only a CIB. I don't have a CIB, but have owned a registered M16 for 7 years, a Galil semi since the mid 80's, as well as a Garand, M1A , SIG-AMT, and an M60. Some perspective is in order. The gas action of the M16 does dump gas into the bolt to provide the energy for unlocking and unloading. The AK action pushes a piston which moves the bolt carrier. The AK action vents gas without dumping it into the inside of the firearm. This does require that an M16 be cleaned with extra care. The tighter tolerances used in the manufacture of the M16 lend themselves to accuracy, but not to the toleration of crap introduced by the environment ... whether it's sand or yesterday's lunch. On the subject of sand ... ask Russ Taylor's Marines if it is difficult to keep an M16 clean in the desert, especially without dry lubricants. Damn right it is. Ask the Israeli's about their experience with the FN FAL heavy bbl SAW ... the bang, bang, jam gun. My own experience is that the M1A doesn't like sand a lot more than the M16 ... but it doesn't require the high level of cleanliness either. Sand is tough on weapons actions. It ain't the ideal place for any weapon that was made with moderate to precise tolerances.. In the final analysis, we did a lot with the M16 concept over the years. It evolved to a pretty reliable weapon. Can we do better ? ... damn right we can! Question is ... do we want to? | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:My limited understanding of the FN is that "bang, bang, jam" is a characteristic of full-auto FAL's even under favorable conditions. | |||
|
| new member |
Here is a guy that reportedly spent 6 years in SE Asia 65-71 and still seems to prefer the M-16/M-4. But who knows, maybe it was just a photo-op for the manufacturer??  This army special forces soldier nicknamed "Bones" is 54 years old and a Vietnam veteran. He is currently serving in Afghanistan with the 2nd Battalion of the 19th Special Forces Group. | |||
|
| <KBGuns> |
quote:So everytime you see a picture of a trooper and his M16, you believe that is his personal choice in weaponry? Other people make those decisions for the majority of our troops. The users are rarely asked what they want. "Bones" may love the M16/M4 or he may hate it. A picture of him firering a M4 is not evidance, either way. That realy is a rather redicolus assertation. Kristofer [ 05-06-2003, 05:33: Message edited by: KBGuns ] | ||
|
| new member |
Well here I am, being 'redicolus' again..... Something tells me that a Green Beret with over 35 years of experience knows the ins and out of the M-16/M-4 a bit better than myself or any of the other armchair quarterbacks in the crowd. It is commonly reported that many U.S. and global special operations forces have their choice of prime weapons. A great example of this is that we continue to see the M-14/M-21 show up in modern combat. Here's a .308 in action a couple of weeks ago in northern Iraq.  Is this weapon in play because the operator is going to be legging it across the desert for 20 miles, or because the guy wants to put a single 165 grain where the sun don't shine? I think the decked-out M-4 in the right of the picture is a better example of what the operators consider their prime weapon. My question is, if the M-16/M-4 is such garbage, than why is it used so widely in the elite U.S. and global units? Delta, DEVGRU, SEALs, SAS, take your pick....the 10.5 inch SOPMOD M-4 is rapidly taking over from the venerable MP-5 in CQB applications as well, just ask this Navy SEALS DEVGRU operator on Karzai duty in Afghanistan.  Why would he be carrying this weapon if he wasn't 100% confident that it could save his life and help him carry out the mission? There is no question that many of you have much more trigger time on black rifles and carbines than I do, so don't get your panties in a bunch over my comments. I'm just pointing out what I see the elite troops packing. | |||
|
| one of us |
MR. Ansgar, I've seen combat experience with an M-16. It is not a FOOLPROOF weapon, I've used M1A1 variant sniper rifles, as well as M1-C, and M1-D sniper rifles, I would rather have an M-249 instead of an M-60, or an FN-59, instead of an M-60. You are a Texan, I respect Stevie Ray Vaughan, and his older brother Jimmie Vaughan, but Sir, wait until you can actually read some experience from a vet, before belittling people, I've also used various bolt action weapons, in the sniping role. Please have a nice day, not meant to draw flames in here with you, or anybody else, for that matter, but the M-16 is NOT the all around answer, nor is the AK-47 / 74, ALL weapons have their uses, followers, and "haters". I can't say where my experiences have taken place due to the Gov't, but I will say the M-16 has it's role, if it didn't, it would NOT have lasted this long. If, MR. Ansgar, you would like to have something to say to me I'd rather take it up with you by you E-mailing me and having the respect of the others and this forum to keep it out of here and just between you and me. If you can't keep to E-mail, then do not bother me. Thank You kindly, [ 05-06-2003, 15:51: Message edited by: Crazy Cledus ] | |||
|
| one of us |
This is all my personal opinion. My prime experience in the military was with the M1, a Colt 1911, and browning machineguns. Armor and m48 and m60 tanks. (my age is showing). Actually got to shoot an M14 once for familiarzation. Like it. Got to shoot it full auto. Liked it. My personal opinion is that the M16 based weapons have three weaknesses that could be easily cured. The first problem is the fact the receiver is made of aluminum. Aluminum is hell to machine, it galls, and it stress cracks when bent. The other problem is the gas tube design. It should be a piston with a operation rod like the AK. And last the fact the sights are so high because of the handle. Whatever happened to keep your head down? I think if you are carrying it by the handle you are potentially dead. Guess what the AR180 solves all these problems. Or the Robinson M96 (all stainless steel). I don't own any of these weapons, but have borrowed friend's to shoot. I have a friend that has a Stirling ar180. I really liked it. Stamped and welded steel. Shoots fine. If the amount of money and time had been spent on the 180 as the m16 it might be very fine. Just my opinion and observations. | |||
|
| one of us |
No sarcasm intended, God Bless Mike The Bear!!!!!! | |||
|
| Moderator |
Just one point...just because a weapon is issued to one of the so called "Special Forces" does not make it ideally suited to "general issue"....The generally higher standard of training, coupled with a usually higher level of personal dicipline means thats some short comings can be over come. Typical of this is the cleaning issue. I have seen a supposedly expirienced infantry soldier substitute a scrap of army issue blanket for a piece of 4x2 and promptly get it stuck in the barrel of his SLR, snapping the pull through in the process... What seems like common sense to some is in fact not that common! | |||
|
| <Swift Shot> |
I have never shot it in combat but I have shot thousands of rounds through the M-16. (YEARLY SHOOT IT OR LOSE IT MARINE CORPS AMMO TRAINING ALOTMENT) It has many strong points. I love the being able to shoot a very accurate rifle. It is light in weight which is awesome and has very little kick so when doing rapid fire you easily reaquire the target. I hate the choice of 223. If I have some crazed freak charging my butt I would prefer to shoot him with a 308. The problem lies I believe in logistics. What is the weight difference between 1,000,000 223 rounds and 308. I bet its a lot and when you start talking about grunt gear weight is everything. I carried 8 clips of ammo on operations 3 per hip and one double taped in front pocket. I calculate it is 2.6 times heavier per round. Giving the choice I would prefer the M14 but I really do not believe the M-16 is a bad firearm. I believe it could be made better and maybe the next generation of it will be much improved. | ||
|
| <Eric> |
Mikethebear, I have an issue friend. The receiver of a "Mattel" is aluminum, granted. It is however a forging, whick compacts the molecules, adds a "grain,' and in general, makes it very, very strong for aluminum. And, having machined several tons of aluminum in twenty years as a journeyman machinist, I'd say it is a joy to work with and only "galls" when run with no cutting lubricant or a dull, dull, cutting tool. So, I disagree. Oh yea, steel "stress cracks' when bent too. It just takes a few more bends to make it crack all the way through. A moot point here I think. As for using aluminum for the receiver, all the locking work is done in the barrel. No stress, at all, on the receiver. It merely holds the works together. Granted, we are talking a "Mattel' here. The M-1 or M1A design would not take the abuse. Though I would like to try Titainium. Now that shit is hard to machine! ![[Eek!]](images/icons/shocked.gif){kind=icon} I used to be a real anti-glock guy until I saw one go over 100,000 rounds with no, yes, no, breakage. Much as I like the 1911A1 (finest firearm ever made) that is a hard thing to ignore. ![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif){kind=icon} My two cents. Eric | ||
|
| <JOHAN> |
quote:Strange ![[Roll Eyes]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif){kind=icon} I have owned a FN fal para version that worked any time with all sorts of ammo even if it was dirty. I have two friends from Brittain who were in the Desert Storm and they much rather used the Britt FN FAL than the SA 80. Their experince is that the FAL will work under almost any condition. The full auto fal's sometimes have trouble with the 30rd magazines. / JOHAN | ||
|
| one of us |
Everybody, It is just my opinion. Don't like aluminum. Change out the trigger guards on my Model 70's as soon as I can even though the guard costs 80 bucks. It is worth it. 40 years ago I had to run a lathe and milling machine while I was going to school. This was while I was building specialize tools for semi-counductor company. Brass good. Aluminum bad. . Aluminum may be a lot better now with new alloys. Changed out the floor plate on my last model 77 (wish I hadn't sold that gun). Just my opinion on the M16. I think it is correct but nobody in the Department of Defence is going to change anything by what I say so the M16 variants are safe. But I had plastic worse than aluminum. I do like aluminum alloy camera bodies. | |||
|
| one of us |
Oh yeah, the dog will chew up your glock. ![[Big Grin]](images/icons/grin.gif){kind=icon} | |||
|
| <Eric> |
Mikethebear, ROTFL, you are right about the dog dude! I just leave mine in the truck so that won't happen! Why leave the Glock in the truck? 'Cause if I loose it I won't cry like I would if I lost one of my 1911's. ![[Frown]](images/icons/frown.gif){kind=icon} Lot of good posts here regarding the "Mattel." Everybody has a reason for their opinions. Some are good, some are "smoke and mirrors." However, I'll still use mine if I get to where it counts and be confident it will do it's job. ![[Cool]](images/icons/cool.gif){kind=icon} Regards, Eric | ||
|
| one of us |
quote:The M-4's barrel is 16", the M-16's is 20". The M-16 has a fixed stock, the M-4 a collapsible one. The M-16 has a carrying handle with rear aperture sight, the M-4 has no carrying handle and a Picatinny rail where aperture, optical, or thermal sights can be mounted. I don't believe the M-4 can accept the M-203 grenade launcher like the M-16A2 can. That's basically it. The M-4 is essentially an M-16 carbine. | |||
|
| one of us |
the M-4 can accept the M-203 but I belive it requires a different coller to fit the shorter hand guard | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:I stand corrected. | |||
|
| one of us |
Oh Yeah, I am about to trade something for a 40s&w Glock with night sights. It is one of the little ones that holds 8 in the mag with an extension for 9. Don't have a dog and I don't think the cat can scratch it too much. It fits in my center console is the only reason I am considering it. | |||
|
| one of us |
The M-16's I shot were fairly reliable if you kept them clean. I was a lefty, you could always tell a lefty as our right ear lob had little circles on it from catching the brass on occasion. I didnt see combat, but was in the 82nd Airborne during 71-73 (so I damn sure was ready for combat). It's like anything else, take care of it, and it will take care of you. The biggest complaint most had was the small bullets, verses the 14. Back then the M-16 did have a slower twist rate 1 - 12 I believe, and the bullet was a FMJ 55 grain, verses today, the rifle has a 1-9 twist rate, and shoots a FMJ 67 grain ( or there abouts) bullet. No it wasnt a perfect rifle, but it wasnt as bad as most made it out to be either. | |||
|
| new member |
Carried the M-16 A1 for three years on active duty in the USMC. Swamps and Mountains in the States, Jungles in the far east, and various locations in the Mediterranean. As long as this weapon is lubricated properly (LSA lubricant), it is a dependable and effective firearm. Larger calibers may be preferred for knockdown power, but when you need to hump all the ammo you can carry, weight is a consideration. | |||
|
| one of us |
HI, I do not have the experience of being in the military, but my AR15 works all the time. I have no problem of shooting 500 rounds out of it dirty or not it keeps on working. Kev | |||
|
| one of us |
Has anyone had any experience with the Robinson Arms 96 expeditionary rifle? They have information on their web-site about a military (not even police) only model that is called the RAV02. Comes in Russian 7.62, Russian 22, and 223. Supposed to have a mean time between failures greater than the M4. Full auto and semi. Any comments? Also uses AK (for the russian stuff) or M16 mags. | |||
|
| one of us |
While I was in the danish army some years ago (at that time we used HK G3, 308W), I talked to a couple of guys in the danish special forces about weapons. The danish special forces are always able to pick their own favorite weapon - and their favorite depends on the job they are going to do. On normal patrol (where the have to walk a lot, and be out for days) they bring a M4 - becuase they can bring a lot of ammo at low weight. At short combat patrols they favour a newer folding stock version of the G3, because of the longer range and better harder hitting - or the M4 - 203 with the grenade launcher. At other operations they bring HK MP 5 with silencer.... I think that this says it all - the "best" weapon will always depend on the job it has to do. | |||
|
| 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 |