The M-16

Waht do you think about the M16 family?

  • Have used it and think it it is the best rifle in the world

    Votes: 7 17.5%

  • Have used it and think it is OK

    Votes: 10 25.0%

  • Have used it and think it is a poor weapon

    Votes: 2 5.0%

  • Have not used it and think it it is the best rifle in the world

    Votes: 1 2.5%

  • Have not used it and think it is OK

    Votes: 19 47.5%

  • Have not used it and think it is a poor weapon

    Votes: 1 2.5%
  • Total voters
    40
I was more or less thinking along the lines of these kid-soldiers in Africa or demoralized draftees at the end of the Vietnam conflict. I am convinced that a professional, well-trained soldier will take care of his weapon, because he is aware of the dangers when he doesn't!
 
Ted said:
I am convinced that a professional, well-trained soldier will take care of his weapon, because he is aware of the dangers when he doesn't!
Click to expand...

Don't be so convinced. Most of the complaints about the M16/M4s from the US military come from guys that have simply neglected their weapons. NCOs have to stay on them all of the time. It's often the little and most important details that are the most forgotten.
 
You can clean a M16 in less than three minutes. Just get a brass brush and a bore snake. BAM! The barrel is done. Need to clean the gas tube. You get a Pipe Tobacco cleaner and run that through the gas tube. BAM! that's done too.

The bolt, just spray a little oil on it and wipe it down with a rag.

It's not hard to clean it really quick to keep it working. Will it pass inspection? More than likely no, but it will work.
 
I have fired every M-16 from the original all the way up to the M-4. I think PJ and 5.56's comments are right on the mark and I hope Sherman listens to them.
 
I have never fired a weapon in my whole life. the veterans I have talked to sometimes give the thumbs up or the thumbs down to the M-16. In my humble opinion I would like to us the M4A1. :m16shoot:
 
I've used the M-16 on occasion. OK, on lots of occasions. I've used it in the humidity of the jungle, the arid sand of the desert, and in ice and snow. It was for most of my life my primary weapon.
I won't say that it is the perfect all purpose weapon nor will I say that I was unhappy with it in general. There were times when I wished it had more penetrating power or had a larger ammunition capacity. The failure of magazines has been discussed here and I agree that they left a lot to be desired at times.
Of course, it had trade offs. The lighter weight was a plus while the lack of penetrating capacity of the ammo was not.
Because it's a more precisely made machine, you must perform more maintenance than on some other rifles (ie. AKs) to keep it functioning properly.
If you would compare the 16 to it's biggest competitor, the AK, the M-16's accuracy is a plus. I'm not an armorer or ballistics expert but I can tell you from personal experience that at distances of greater than about 150 meters, involving a soldier with an M-16 and one with an AK-47, the guy with the AK is SOL.
Many of the early problems with the M-16 were the result of bad 5.56 ammo. It was made with dirty burning powder and carbon would quickly accumulate and cause jams. The ammo and maintenance were improved and many problems were prevented. The same can be said for the magazines made for the 16. The spring was poor and ammo would fail to feed into the chamber. This was also remedied.
This is an old discussion but I thought I'd throw my $.02 into it anyway. I'll leave the discussion of other, newer rifles to those with more experience with them than I.
 
Never fired one, but from what I read and what people tell me I get the impression that the M-16 series was good but not great. I get the impression that there are better rifles out there, espically from Germany-Austria.
 
With regards to penetrating power, I've heard some very negative things on the green-tip carbide penetrator round, and really don't agree with the whole concept of the bullet. Someone care to dispell any problems with overpenetration? I'd rather my bullet stay in the target and fragment, thank you very much. Besides, do we really need armor penetration rounds in Iraq when we're in an urban environment and want to reduce civilian casualties?
 
The rounds we use in our M16 family weapon systems were designed to defeat Warsaw-pact body armor in conventional conflicts, and it is no suprise to me that these bullets are going through flesh like a pin through warm butter. Also, it doesn't help that some of the enemies we face today are taking adrenaline, horse tranquilizers, and other pain suppressing drugs to keep them fighting after getting shot three, four, and I've heard up to eight times by an M16 before physically stopping. Pisses me off.
 
yeah, and from what I understand we aren't changing from the carbide-penetrator because we dont' feel like screwing with Geneva, although we technically don't have to regard the small-arms ammunition piece of it.
 
deerslayer said:
yeah, and from what I understand we aren't changing from the carbide-penetrator because we dont' feel like screwing with Geneva, although we technically don't have to regard the small-arms ammunition piece of it.
Click to expand...

The standard green tip, 62gr (M885), is being phased out and replaced with the 77gr (Mk 262).
 
Having used this weapon in Vietnam, (never fired in combat), I have to agree with the comments made by PJ24, Luis and especially DTop. most of the complaints on this weapon are old i.e. based on early ammo types and poorly designed magazines, both of which have been taken care of. More telling is PJ24's and Luis' comments on the proper care and maintenance of the weapon. If you don't take care of your weapon (any weapon), it won't take care of you.
 
M-16 is okay, its in the top 10 but its not number one. But does have die hard fans. I've used the C-7 and C-7 a1 in the CF and liked it. But the direct gas system is a pig and needs too much care to work well.

No other weapon has as has many gucci items.... If given the chance I would take one over a AK but that is because training and I've developed a feeel for that weapon. The FN-FAL is still by far better than M-16/C-7, but that's my personal opinion.


 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top