M16

[Gman]

Just got another Model 700 Police today

Now you need a stock for it! <--Blatent sales attempt.




I've found that I actually prefer the stock Remington police stock more, especially if you have to haul the rifle any distance (ie sniper course of fire at some competitions).  The AICS on my 700 Police above is nice for benchrest/prone shooting, but the rifle loaded with a 10 round mag tips the scales at 16.3 pounds.  :/

[AKDejaVu]

What company is that gman?

BTW.. missed the M4 photo above the first time around... nice rifle.

AKDejaVu

[Monk]

Originally posted by AKDejaVu
Nice Rifle... what caliber?

 

.308. It's a M40A1, hand built in Quantico, VA.
.....Yum Yum:D

[AKDejaVu]

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
qualified ? with who the friggin army lol . i dont teach rifle range any more so its been a while i think my nra cirts were for 5 years and its been more that that .

Ummmm... ya.... er... wait... What?

but i have been hunting and firin rifles and pistols in the military and in civilian life since i was 6 now im 34 . you do the math. but no matter what i say it wont matter to you so whatever.

Wow.. you are in such a unique category here.  Couldn't be more than 20% of America that has just as much or more experience than you've managed to scrape together.

What really amazes me is that inspite of 28 years of "experience"... you still sound like a love muffin when you talk on the subject.

anyone who posts about what a insanely  good shot they are is a handsomehunk. its a rule. and anyone who argues the merits of the m16 over the m14 is about the same. sorry its a self evident truth

Huh?  One person said he liked the larger caliber better... the other said he could do just fine with an M4.  Guess you didn't like that?

also not once in europe or africa did i see a m16 that wasent purchased by our gov for them. and not one rifle that wasent .30 or 7.62. . face it you got a second rate weapon that is suitable for use by a woman and since you boys land one out of 100,000 or so rounds they went for a cheap lite weapon so you could hump more ammo.

Hmmm... not once anywhere did I see a .30 cal M16 and I've not seen a .308 M16 in military service.  Granted... I've only worked with 7 or 8 different countries.  Most of them used the G3 or Galil (3rd world preferences) or went British.  Most I know would have gladly traded their weapons for the M-16... but few of them have ever had the need to put that comparison/performance to the real test.

and who cares about sas and the other "elite force" its the regular grunts/jarheads/sailors that get the job done and name one of those forces that uses m16 ( outside of givaways mexico and  canada).

The special forces usually get their choice in weapons.  Seldomely does political correctness come into play as far as selecting what your country builds or recommends... it comes down to performance.  HK ruled supreme for a tad bit.. but they lacked the punch.  The .223 is definately being viewed in a new light.

in 91 i was walkin duty with a m14 we had m16s but they sucked so badly during shooting trials on the ship they stayed in the lockers. so  we used the ones that didnt jam constantly the m14s.

You were in the Navy?  How long?

AKDejaVu

[Dago]

The M14 didn't take quite as long to develop...but does anyone know if its been tested in a battlefield yet?

Are you asking if the M14 has been used on a battlefied?

How about Vietnam?  The M14 was used there.
Lotta good stories about how it worked came outta that war.

Dago

[lord dolf vader]

hey ak cop bug off do you ever do anything but play the tinpot napoleon? yea i was in the nav long enought to get a sw aisa service medal.  if you will read again and get off your silly im so friggin perfect high horse for one sec and try not to be a complete ass. but after 3 years of so of you facist crap i know there is no hope .


my cirtifications in the civilian world were all nra took a 2 week course 10 hours a day for 2 weeks to get thru it . i had every major cirt they offered about 7 as i recall.then taught rifle range for two years at a boy scout camp called camp purdle in east texas. you will find few places where firearms and veterans are more thickly distributed.


then i handeled both firearms in a military situation on the uss virginia cgn 38 (where i had to deal with the afor mentioned piece of crap m16s you are all raving about)

then in the sentence you didnt understand i said  m16s (and then a period) and then no rifles that werent 30 cal ( do i have to specify if its .303 or .308 ?) once again lose the cut and past and look befor you bellow.

he didnt say he liked it better he said it had shown to be more accurate in tests and i called him on it . i said he was full of toejam like i believe him to be.with real life military and civilian certifed experience.
 so lose the tinpot napoeon crap lots of folks served in the military and didnt come away from it stark ravin coservative republican hall monitor cheerleadin passive agressive types like yourself.

 love and kisses

[Gman]

he didnt say he liked it better he said it had shown to be more accurate in tests and i called him on it

Are you talking about me or somebody earlier in the thread?  If so, you read even worse than you write, if that is possible.  


Your first post is under my first post, where I stated that the M1A's/M14's I shoot are more accurate and a better all round caliber than my AR15 and M4.  My 2nd post I stated what groups I can shoot under ideal circumstances, with the M1A/M14's groups being better.  Where did I say that the AR is more accurate than the M14?  I gave a specific example in my 3rd post of a VARIANT of AR that will outshoot your typical M14/M1A, and this is pretty common knowledge in the shooting community.

As I stated before, I shoot my AR variants a LOT, over 2000 rounds per month, in addition to about 2000 rounds of other stuff, a lot of it .22 indoor league, as well as about 200 long range stuff.   I also shoot virtually every day, a minimum of 100 rounds.  My office is in a local range/shop, and I've got access to it and several other ranges to do demos for local L/E reps and I take advantage of this by shooting a LOT.  I'm surrounded by experts in the field at the office, with some of the best shooters in my country there.  I'm only beginning to learn to shoot well, but I can say without hesitation that what you are ineffectively trying to argue is crap.  I've got dozens, if not hundreds of targets to prove the numbers I said before, and again, as I stated before, this is pretty run of the mill shooting.  

I for one can't understand how somebody with your supposed accredation can state that an 8 inch group with an AR variant at 500 meters is BS.  Hell, the score box on a standard figure 11 target is only that wide, if you can't group inside of it, you won't score, which would eliminate the need for shooting at this range in competitions.  EVERY comp I've ever shot in for service rifle goes to this range, and some further, out to 600 sometimes.  All you have done here is jumped into the topic and cooked up what you want to believe I ( I think you're reffering to me) said, when it was quite the contrary, and started a barely comprehensible argument with your words in others mouths.





I also showed you a link to one of the cheaper AR target variants, which is guranteed to shoot 1/2 MOA at 500 meters.  Since I don't think you know what an MOA is, I'll break it down for you.  It's about 2.5 inches at 500 meters.  This rifle is GURANTEED to shoot this well, and they even come with a set of test targets when you buy the rifle.  Dozens and Dozens of smiths/shops can do this to AR rifles, and they are EVERYWHERE in the shooting scene.

Sorry pal, but I don't like being insulted out of the blue, and like it even less when someone implies I'm a liar.  I'll be happy to set up my digital video camera at the range and prove any of this to you, if it'll shut your hole.

For one issuing statements that people are full of BS, you certainly sound like a pot calling the kettle black.  I have to agree with AKDejaVu here.[

[lord dolf vader]

"Also contrary to popular opinion a field grade m16 is more accurate than a field grade m14 . They did tons of tests and m16s consistently produced tighter shot groups ."

samm

this is what i called him on. you have a cite for these tests?


if you think you can can hit a 2.5 inch group at 500 yards with a field grade iron site m 16 there aint much more i can say to you. other than you are dead wrong. or do they have wind in this perfect world of yours?

[Gman]

Ok, again, one more time, I was qouting stats for AR VARIANTS, WITH OPTICS, not iron sights.  Click the link to the les bear rifle, you'll see for yourself.  I'm not saying I can shoot that well, 2.5/500 meters, but MANY shooters can.  The target AR's are almost without exception 3/4 MOA guns or better.

Hitting a figure 11, which is a 80% size man target used in all service rifle competitions is done all the time at 500 meters with iron sighted M16/AR15's.  It's the beginning of the course of fire usually, so guys shoot very well since they aren't out of breath from running to the next stage, and it's almost always prone or sitting position.  Sure, the groups may not be that great, but guys in this thread making out like it's impossible to hit anything with a 5.56 gun at 500 meters are out to lunch.

Hell, the shop here is the distributor for SiG rifles, and every one of them come with targets shot in Switzerland, at 300 and 500meters, iron sights, and some of them score "possibles" at 300, and shoot minute of angle at 500.

[AKDejaVu]

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
hey ak cop bug off do you ever do anything but play the tinpot napoleon? yea i was in the nav long enought to get a sw aisa service medal.  if you will read again and get off your silly im so friggin perfect high horse for one sec and try not to be a complete ass. but after 3 years of so of you facist crap i know there is no hope .

LOL! OK... you win here.  Pretty hard to argue with this type of moronity.

my cirtifications in the civilian world were all nra took a 2 week course 10 hours a day for 2 weeks to get thru it . i had every major cirt they offered about 7 as i recall.then taught rifle range for two years at a boy scout camp called camp purdle in east texas. you will find few places where firearms and veterans are more thickly distributed.

Wow.. had no idea I was up against a 2 week NRA certification course.  I bow to your qualifications.

And... I dunno about what you believe to be "few places where firearms and verterans are more thickly distributed".  Me thinks you haven't been around much.  I've found that no matter where you go.. there's an abundance of both.  Of course, I could sit back and believe my experiences were the absolute truth and nobody else's mattered... but I'd have to change my ID to towd.

then i handeled both firearms in a military situation on the uss virginia cgn 38 (where i had to deal with the afor mentioned piece of crap m16s you are all raving about)

Excuse me for wondering how a navy carrier group would be any place to test the capabilities of the M-16.  I bow to your deck patrol experience and will keep my in the middle of the jungle experiences to myself.  They surely pale in comparison.

then in the sentence you didnt understand i said  m16s (and then a period) and then no rifles that werent 30 cal ( do i have to specify if its .303 or .308 ?) once again lose the cut and past and look befor you bellow.

No.. I understood the sentance.  You said .30 cal OR 7.62.   Ah... but I must have been mistaken there.  I mean... its not like 7.62 is a .308 or anything like that (both completely different than a .30 cal).

What do I know though... I never took a 2 week NRA course.

he didnt say he liked it better he said it had shown to be more accurate in tests and i called him on it . i said he was full of toejam like i believe him to be.with real life military and civilian certifed experience.

He never said it was more accurate.. he said it was plenty accurate.  You called roadkill on his comparison.  I know those numbers are quite believable.  But my measely experience once again pales in comparison.

so lose the tinpot napoeon crap lots of folks served in the military and didnt come away from it stark ravin coservative republican hall monitor cheerleadin passive agressive types like yourself.

Gotta say its a good thing that you told in spite of the "don't ask" policy.  I never pictured you to be left or right wing.  To be frank.. you don't make enough sense to be either.

I picture you more as being in the "let me speak so that everyone else will sound more intelligent" category.

AKDejaVu

[Braz]

Now children!

Lotta Skeeter Skelton fans in here, heheh. The Les Baer varmit is a good'n, claims of 1/4 min accuracy. But I'd have to agree with Skeeter, Springfield Armory makes great weapons. If you've got a tuned M1A NM and a 1911, your well armed. But I perfer a CAR-15 for close quarters where accuracy isn't so important.

Anyone action shoot, or cowboy action shoot?

[lord dolf vader]

ok tinpot here we go again  he did say it was more accurate here is the quote again its the same one that was below your last post but im shure you never even read it  fool.

"Also contrary to popular opinion a field grade m16 is more accurate than a field grade m14 . They did tons of tests and m16s consistently produced tighter shot groups ."

samm

what the hell do you to take that to mean.

the rest of what you said is just your typical bullcrap. i bow to your cirtifications. mind if you list um? put up or shut up.

[fdiron]

Does the M16 still use ammunition that tumbles when enters a human?  I think I read in one of the previous posts that the ammo has been re-engineered to not tumble.  Is this true?

[Toad]

Towd, it's just a discussion about rifles.

When you came back here, I really thought you'd achieved some inner peace.

Perspective. It's just a discussion about rifles. Is it worth all the disharmony?

[AKDejaVu]

Sorry towd.. I can't list a NRA course on my credits.  But I can list 8 years of military experience (though with the Air Force... so paling in comparison to those with infantry units) but 4 years of that was with a combat communications squadron where we were trained in base defense for remote setup with no other form of security.

I then spent some 4 months down in the jungle as security for a radar site.  We were "attacked" 4 times while I was down there.  My job was patrolling the inner perrimeter and overseeing the conscripts that were working with us.  That meant through the jungle patrols with a weapon.  We were using the KAR-15 for that work and I cannot think of a better rifle for the work.  Of course, we were also using shotguns as very close support weapons for the 40 yard kill zone on the west side of the camp.  We also carried 9mm sidearms.

I also spent a large portion of my time on the range while in the military.  Our base did not use very much of its handgun ammo and in typical military fashion they had to "use it or lose it".  So.. a group of about 10 of us would fire off about 500 rounds of .45, 9mm and .38 a night... for about 4 months out of the year.

I've also shot rifles of some form all of my life.  I now own an AR-15 that's had about 5000 rounds go through it.  I also own 2 Remmington Model 700's that are set up for long-range target shooting.  But my favorites are the .22s (3 of them) that you can burn hundreds of rounds off with and not have to worry as much about things like backstops.

As handguns go... I've a somewhat limited set.  A 9mm browning hi-power clone from WWII (nazi stamping on it) that my grandfather got from the war... a Baretta .40 model 94 and a Ruger M100 .357 6" barrel.  The 9mm and Baretta have seen over a 1000 rounds each.

So what do these qualifications have to do with thinking your a love muffin that just enters into these threads to post anything that is antimilitary or anti-status quo?  Absolutely nothing.

But I do know how to shoot.  And I do know how accurate an M-16 is... as well as a baretta and a Model 700 rifle.

As for the "what is better".. the quote you are using is a "something I've read" comment.  Some would learn to take that for what it was worth... others would rather counter with their own misconceptions and then just argue about who's is worth more.

The reason I ever brought up experience is because those talking about the applications of these weapons have no experience with those applications.  Now it just boils down to who's stories people have listened to... and that's no way to debate the merits of something.  It really is quite humorous.

I've noticed that nobody has really said why the M-16 sucks.  I've seen not enough stopping power or lethality from somalia... an environment where less than 100 soldiers killed more than 1000 people armed with larger calibre weapons.  This is somehow proving the combat ineffectiveness of an M-16?

The modern M-16 is a fine weapon.  There may be better guns out there, but they aren't that much better... there just isn't much room.  Specialty guns are brought in to bridge any gap that the M-16 might leave.  The large calliber autos/sniper weapons and even larger callibre auto/sniper weapons seem to server that purpose well.  But to think that introducing a different assault weapon would eliminate the need for these weapons is ludicrous... so its a matter of considering what these support weapons cannot do and finding the best available gun to do everything else and do it in a combat environment.

AKDejaVu