Another bad weapon, even though it pains me to say it.

Is the Springfield 1903 Rifle(for standard issue) In World War I, when the primary battles were long range trench fights(aka long shots) it excelled.

But during WWII, the need for the "double tap"(two shots) was vital to survival. So the 1903 lost it's useful potential.

But by no mean is it a bad gun, just not good for the changing times.

Yes...thats the reason the M1 Garand replaced the 1903 as the standard infantry rifle. But you didn't double tap with it, the .30-06 cartridge blows giant holes in people, killing them rather quickly.

As for me... I prefer the M-14, due to the fact that it is .308cal.

But the gun is far to heavy, it is powerful, but heavy


If they could make a M-16A3(in .308cal) that would be like amazing, because the engineering of the M-16 is amazing, it's just that the .223 lacks power.

This site shows a early 1960's Armalite AR-10 in .308CAL

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as16-e.htm

This would be nice gun, if they would put it into service

Actually it wasn't untill late 1943 when the 1903 was not the standard weapon of the Marines.

My Grandfather was at Midway, and that is what he used. They didn't get the M-1 till much later(probally because the majority of them were going to the European Campaign)

M-9 blows chunks. M1911 will knock someone down quick, fas and in a hurry(and they won't get up)!

The M16A3 was never fielded by the army, instead they skipped it and went straight to the M16A4. If you treated it right it would treat you right. Keep it clean and it will do alright. M4 is not a bad weapon either. The AK is much more reliable than the M16 family of weapons but, the M16 series is so much more accurate. While I would rather have a round with more knockdown power, the 5.56 ain't too bad. People have to remember that the round was not designed to be a long range round. It is supposed to be small and lightweight so that soldiers can carry a lot fo them. But all of this boils down to is, a questionable weapon in the hands of a well trained soldier is just as effective, if not more so than a great weapon in the hands of an untrained soldier.

ak 47s have a reliability that can't be compared, but unfortunately due to the firing mechanism is pretty innacurate. i love the m14 but its kickback is fierce (i almost broke my eyesocket to pieces) mp5s good for close range urban stuff. i like m4s cus they are small and relatively lightweight. the steyr aug looks like an alien gun so i think its cool.

"The M16A3 was never fielded by the army, instead they skipped it and went straight to the M16A4. If you treated it right it would treat you right. Keep it clean and it will do alright. M4 is not a bad weapon either. The AK is much more reliable than the M16 family of weapons but, the M16 series is so much more accurate. While I would rather have a round with more knockdown power, the 5.56 ain't too bad. People have to remember that the round was not designed to be a long range round. It is supposed to be small and lightweight so that soldiers can carry a lot fo them. But all of this boils down to is, a questionable weapon in the hands of a well trained soldier is just as effective, if not more so than a great weapon in the hands of an untrained soldier."


In all due respect, the M-16 is a terrible gun. Take it from someone who has used it in combat. It is weak, accurate, but weak. But I come from a werid bunch of people(Marines) we prefer long distance knockdown power.
(That is why we are the best in the Military for long distance rifle shooting)

I'm sure the M-4 is along the same lines as the M-16, personally I have not shot the M-4, but have shot the M-14 and loved it(but it was way to heavy)

The need to make a .308cal rifle on the M-16 frame, that would be a great gun.

But the catridge needs to be at least 49mm long to get the long range power that is needed.

Well that is my opionion take it or leave it. *salutes* Sir

I agree that the M16 is a weak weapon, and has a bad design. And a 5.56 round in entirely too weak to do any substantial damage at extended ranges, and the small round over penetrates.

About combat though, I will have to take your word for it, as I have never been. The closest thing I got to it was live fires, but that is no where near close to combat.

The reason that the 5.56 round was fielded was because it was so much lighter and cheaper than the 7.62.

Soldier of Fortune magazine all though kinda fringe, has done a really good series of articles on the development of a 6.8 mm assault rifle round. All of the lightweight /high ammo capacity of the 5.56, and the stopping power of the 7.62.

There is also a new round that has been developed called a .50 Beowulf. It is essentially a .50 AE round that has been stretched lengthwise to get more of a punch. The weapon that was designed to fire it was based on a M16/M4 frame with a reinforced buffer spring.

Hopefully the new XM8 will solve all of our M16 woes. I think we need a new round more than we need a new rifle.

Originally Posted by USMC Johnny

In all due respect, the M-16 is a terrible gun. Take it from someone who has used it in combat. It is weak, accurate, but weak. But I come from a werid bunch of people(Marines) we prefer long distance knockdown power.
(That is why we are the best in the Military for long distance rifle shooting)

I'm sure the M-4 is along the same lines as the M-16, personally I have not shot the M-4, but have shot the M-14 and loved it(but it was way to heavy)

I have to disagree about the M-16 being a "terrible" weapon. I too, have used it in combat, many times, and while not my first choice - it gets the job done and I have never had any major problems with it. I think there are improvements to be made in the M-16, particularly IRT the gas system. There are certainly better ammo choices than the M855/856, we could hardly do worse. Treating magazines as expendable items and maintaining a replacement cycle for weapons as they reach the end of their service life would be another.

Never had any major problems with the M-4, as well - and I find it completely different than the M-16, problems and benefits. The 77gr 5.56 does well with the M-4.

Hopefully the new XM8 will solve all of our M16 woes. I think we need a new round more than we need a new rifle.

The version the Army intends to replace the 20" M-16 and 14.5" M-4 with is a by-product of the horrible OICW, and only has a 12" barrel, which further reduces the effective range of the weapon to less than 100 meters.

Think of it as a possibly more reliable 10.5" mini-carbine. Not exactly an infantryman's dream weapon for anything more than CQB, and maybe not even then.

I'll keep my M-4.