The M-16
MightyMacbeth
I am Honor
never used it, but I think its fine really 
I think the m14 is good though
I think the m14 is good though
Maytime
Active member
It is only as reliable as how well the user maintains it. Treat it like s***, it will perform like s***. It doesn't take much to keep it operable, if you know what you're doing. The only time I've had problems with the M16 is when it was fed sub-par ammo and blanks, which is the same for other firearms as well.sherman said:
$0.02
major liability
Active member
I think that the M16 is a good rifle, but there are better out there.
bigcanada813
Canuckus Maximus
I used it for BRMs in the fall and spring, and I feel that it is a very nice piece of equipment.
moving0target
Active member
Me thinks Sherman has a bone to pick...
I have zero combat experience with the M16 in any of its variations (I've been shot at, but never had the opportunity to return fire). I have fired it before along with a semi-auto civilian variant or two. From that limited experience, I have nothing bad to say about it. I've read up on it pretty extensively and had first hand accounts of its performance (from Vietnam vets, Gulf War vets), and, from that info, I tend to agree with the "it's just as good as its operator" crowd.
The M16 isn't intended to be the "best in the world." It's intended to do a variety of jobs well. It isn't a sniper rifle. It isn't going to excel at close quarters combat like an HK SMG. It won't have the knock down power of a shotgun at point blank range. It isn't a "specialty" firearm. "Specialty" troops probably won't choose the M16 nine times out of ten because it doesn't pertain to the very specific mission they are tasked for. It is, however, a great firearm for a million troop to haul around in the various and sundry climates, terrains, and situations they'll find themselves in all over the world.
I have zero combat experience with the M16 in any of its variations (I've been shot at, but never had the opportunity to return fire). I have fired it before along with a semi-auto civilian variant or two. From that limited experience, I have nothing bad to say about it. I've read up on it pretty extensively and had first hand accounts of its performance (from Vietnam vets, Gulf War vets), and, from that info, I tend to agree with the "it's just as good as its operator" crowd.
The M16 isn't intended to be the "best in the world." It's intended to do a variety of jobs well. It isn't a sniper rifle. It isn't going to excel at close quarters combat like an HK SMG. It won't have the knock down power of a shotgun at point blank range. It isn't a "specialty" firearm. "Specialty" troops probably won't choose the M16 nine times out of ten because it doesn't pertain to the very specific mission they are tasked for. It is, however, a great firearm for a million troop to haul around in the various and sundry climates, terrains, and situations they'll find themselves in all over the world.
PJ24
Active member
moving0target said:
Yeah, that much is obvious. The problem with that is he doesn't have the experience and training to back it up. He's jumped on some bandwagon and is listening to the opinions of others that also have a bone to pick.
The M16 has been tested and proven in combat. 90% of complaints come from people that either a) refuse to like it on principle b) attempt to make it something it isn't or c) have no idea how to properly handle and care for weapons.
Firstly, a bit more respect is in order. While I do have limited experience with the M16, I have experience of shooting it in very very harsh terrain....perhaps too harsh for the poor thing....Powder sand like in the Negev dose horrible things to men and weapons, and this is before considering my rifle was from the mid 70s...
Other people I listen include my step father, a man with over 25 years of active service in the IDF(and about 15 in reserve) , and my father with about 20 years in service and 10 more in reserves. Also other people in the IDF past and present. Dont dismiss me as ignorant or as completely inexprienced. Eventualy IDF troops preffer this weapon to the AK and Galil mostlydue to its weight and accuracy. I consider reliabilety more important. This is why I say it is definetly not the best. Beyond that, I found that for me the Galil is simply much more agreeable to shoot... but thats me. Anyone that says the M16 is a good basic desighn completely ignores the faults of the short and nerrow gas piston, and the poor locking mechanisem. I cleaned my rifle daily. I take very good care of my weapons, as i believe my life depend on them. I still had all 4 jamms in my rifle. The only thing im willing to give the M16 on this is that IDF training ammo is not usually too good, and the IDF recycles mags...still this dosent justify the ammount of jamms in the powder...
PJ24
Active member
SHERMAN said:
Whoa kiddo, hold on now, nothing I said to you was disrespectful. I know all about harsh terrain and conditions (desert, mtn, arctic) and the effects they have on weapons, it ain't all that bad if you (yes again) know how to perform weapons maintenance and take care of it.
Facts are, you have NO experience outside of the one old, refurbished weapon you've fired.
I have to dismiss you as ignorant because you are (and no, I don't mean it as an insult). None of your opinions are based on personal experiences outside of the one, and that's hardly a reason to judge all M16s, especially the new variants. You've also never had to fire one when it counts, and I really hope you never do.
Another fact, as I have already mentioned, the M16 is combat tested and proven. You can say you don't like it, and that's fine, some people just don't like certain weapons. We all have our preferences. But trying to toot that it isn't a reliable and effective weapon isn't going to cut it in the face of reality. It doesn't come without problems, no weapon does, but it gets the job done easily and effectively.
Last edited:
Dean
Active member
I have never used it, but I know many who have, and most of them say the same thing. The version that we use is the C-7, which the rest of the world knows as the Diemaco C-7FT, and it seems to be quite reliable as long as it is properly maintained. The weapon that the Canadian Forces used before the C-7 was their version of the FN-FAL, (the FN-C1) and that thing worked very well even if it was only marginally maintained. In addition, there are other rifles out there that do work well and are not nearly as fussy as the M-16/M-4 series, and some of them are as accurate, if not more so. It is good, but it took a long time to get good, (before that, it was a piece of crap) and I think we can do better. Hell, even the HK 416 is better, and it is basically the same rifle.
Dean.
And Warwick, I miss my FN too.
Dean.
And Warwick, I miss my FN too.
Last edited:
sleepyscout
Active member
In 12months stationed in ar ramadi i never had a failure of any kind with the weapon. I have had failure's from poor magazines but never from a malfunction of the weapon. I have seen numerious failures with the m16 but ALWAYS it has been the operator's fault. Usaly its a failure to probably maintain the waeapon IAW with army regulations. If you clean the weapon and lube the weapon like the book says too and do proper pmcs then you wont have any problems. I want to restress lube because a lot of soldiers espichaly when the war first broke out would clean there weapon but would not lube it for fear of getting sand stuck to the weapon. You can use both CLP and BreakFree they both work wonders. I would go a week at a time with out haveing to clean it, if i didnt fire it.
Last edited:
I think it's okay. I had it in my hands, but wasn't allowed to fire it. It felt good and light so that is a definate pro for somebody in the field. Then again, I have also heard lots of stories about jams etc. It is moments like that that I think: I never heard so many jam-stories about the Ak-family or the FAL's. And I can imagine that you are not always under the circumstance to keep it clean!