Originally Posted by Sukio

The myth most likely started out when some Army planners got the First M 16 A1 off the line , and test fired the first horrible test version and fired it in front of the top brass.

If you took the time to read you could actually stop making assumptions and be informed... but that would be less fun I guess than making completely ignorant suppositions which could not be more wrong.

I'd still take a G36 or an AUG over either any day.

But for close quarters, the only AR-15 variant I'd ever take over an AKS-74U is the Compak-16 made by Arms Tech. Same length as the AKS, same accuracy as the M4 with 5 times the barrel life and a gas trap to avoid the AR-15's characteristic fouling.

The MK-18 with the 10.5 inch barrel is the CQB weapon I'd opt for but then this is going far afield from the topic.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...alWarfare3.jpg

Nice clip! Love the belt clip design for the M4 carbine series to!

But, the Ak 47 stole that idea for belts being used on a assualt weapon first.

But any way, on the quote Bulldog used,

he is right, I was wrong, but, at first many troops in the U.S. Armed forces didnt favor the new rifle over the older M 14, witch was also fully automatic, but , with dagorous recoil effects, that knocked accuracy on full auto out of the question for that rifle.

As far as I know, the M 16 wasnt made JUST specificly for countering the AK series the Russains were introducing. As far as reliablility terms, the M 16 then, was very unreliable, very, the very first A 1 models experianced dramatic problems, and soliders in Vietnam furhtur disliked that aspect of the first M 16s, but some really apealled to the fact that the weapon could fire 500 rounds per minute, and that the 5.56 rounds were small, and light, and that meant that they could carry lots of em.

But, the M 16 today is far different, although the originals were short , but with a devastating fire rate, remeber, 500 rpm may not seem like much, but think, do the math, thats 3 bullets in the barrel at one time, thats makes for a devastating stream of bullets can kill any enemy short of
armor.

But still, you can not, even though the M 16 is far different and improved today,think that it just come to Armed Forces commanders to just improve the weapon, that came from trial and error. In its early field days, it had horrible mechanical problems, that led some to their deaths.And thats no exageration...

Sukio, stop making claims like this without backing it up with reliable sources.
Your age indicates that this isn't something you could have experienced yourself....

Don't tell me you truly believe no American died in Vietnam because his M16 malfunctioned.

Originally Posted by major liability

Don't tell me you truly believe no American died in Vietnam because his M16 malfunctioned.

Who said anything about me not believing that??

When you said Sukio had nothing to back up his post I thought you meant the part where he said "In its early field days, it had horrible mechanical problems, that led some to their deaths.And thats no exageration..."