Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: fdiron on July 01, 2002, 08:35:26 PM
-
Does the U.S. Army still use the version of the M16 that fires only 1 round or 3 round bursts? If so, what would the advantage of this be? I thought the main reason the U.S. switched to automatic weapons was due to the 'suppression' factor that automatic weapons could impose on enemy forces. I talked to a UH-60 pilot two years ago and he said the main reason his helocopter was armed with two M60s was to 'keep their (the enemys) heads down'.
So, doesnt a non-automatic battle rifle put the U.S. military in the same situation it was in during World War II and Korea?
-
It started in Vietnam when the soldiers would get toejam scared and blast away at nothing in full auto and damage the internals of the gun. They put 3 rd. burst on the M16 after that. It seems to me that they could take it off now because our soldiers are more refined than they were back then....but who knows.
-
I believe it is semi auto, burst or full auto. What disadvantage where the US at in ww2 or Korea. They definatly had the best service rife in ww2 in the Garand. The Mp44 was revolutionary and the mg42 was awsome but for long rifles the US had the best. US infantry had awsome fire power in both the named conflicts.
-
m16a2 which is in service now does not fire full auto, the m16a1 did . The m249 has replaced the m16a1 as the squad automatic rifle . Switching from full auto to 3rnd burst had the desired effect of conserving ammo while at the same time increasing the accuracy .
-
M16A2, that US Army still uses, that im aware of, has semi and burst modes.
There however is M16A3 that i know, but i don't think it exists in large quantities yet, nor produced so.
In the even of such big war as Vietnam was, there wouldn't be enough of these "refined" soldiers.
Garand was useful even after WWII for long time, but I wouldn't call the firepower it gave as 'excellent'
Korean war didn't prove much, as ground forces were mostly what they were and various guns were used, mostly not newest ones.
If it would been prepared army that didn't rely on masses of soldiers and witohut weapons with only importance being 'as long as it kills', it'd been much more even firepower.
-
The US army and I would imagine the USMC still use a lot of vietnam era stuff depending on what theater they are in . Heck I can remember carrying an m16a1 wearing OD green fatigues, getting in a jeep and riding to the flight line to board a UH1, this was in 1994 !
The DR8 wire spool which has been in service since before WWII is still in use, you can spot one in "Saving Private Ryan" . Also the browning M2 maching gun predates wwII and is still widely used in every branch including the coast guard .
-
I believe the canadians use the M16A3 with the full auto trigger group. EDIT: that is to say, they have it designated as such... I really don't know if they actually use it...
The A2 is semi and burst - but the M4, the carbine version, along with some other bells and whistles, has a semi/full trigger group.
-
The M-16 (any version) is too light a weapon to fire on full auto. The shooter can't keep it on target and the barrel overheats when he/she tries.
It's not that it wastes ammo; the last time we ran out of ammo was at Bunker Hill; it's just not effective at anything but 'aimed' fire.
The reason so many countires use the M-16 is because it fires a light, high veloicty round from a light and reliable weapon. You can't ask for much more.
The USA will have Laser's before they give up the M-16 :p
-
Originally posted by Samm
The US army and I would imagine the USMC still use a lot of vietnam era stuff depending on what theater they are in . Heck I can remember carrying an m16a1 wearing OD green fatigues, getting in a jeep and riding to the flight line to board a UH1, this was in 1994 !
The DR8 wire spool which has been in service since before WWII is still in use, you can spot one in "Saving Private Ryan" . Also the browning M2 maching gun predates wwII and is still widely used in every branch including the coast guard .
Fatigues in 1994?
The USAF Security Forces were still carrying the M16A1 as late as 1995. In 1993 or 4 I participated in "Phoenix Ace", a Joint EX that at the time was conducted at Ft Chaffee AR. On one of our patrols out in the woods, we ran into an Army Unit (who fired on us first, we were both good guys). There was 15 of us, we had a couple Hogs and 203's and there were 5 of them.... it didn't last long lol, however... none of those guys had any idea the A1 (full auto) was still in service. They thought we had a bunch of SAW's.
-
Originally posted by Otto
The reason so many countires use the M-16 is because it fires a light, high veloicty round from a light and reliable weapon. You can't ask for much more.
The USA will have Laser's before they give up the M-16 :p
Yep, the U.S. Military also likes this idea:
M-16 = Little round, less damage to the body. The 2.23 round was re-engineered years ago to help keep it from "tumbling" once it entered the body. Previous to that, there was one case of a 2.23 round entering a body at the upper chest and exiting the butt. Nowdays it pretty much pokes a hole through. Thats not to make light of the tissue damage done, but compared to 7.62 it's very light.
7.62 = Tear an arm off with a near miss... much higher probablility of an immediate kill and massive tissue damage.
....Wound a guy and you've tied up resources taking care of him. Kill a guy and you can come gettim later. Thats at least one of the arguments for the lighter round.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
They thought we had a bunch of SAW's.
You did, just not m249s . Yeah the army still uses the uniform that predates BDU's, there are ta50 so you're supposed to return them. What really surprised me was the jeep .
-
Consider the raw materials . It takes less resources to make ammo for armies armed with m16s and ak74s . 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 .
-
I was on the M6O MG most of the time. But when I did carry a rifle, guard duty, ect., it was a M14. We were so refined the M14 had no full auto. (If you had a key there was a switch on the side. But you would just end up shooting at sky.). The M16 was a POS with a stick built into the side, to poke the bullet in, when it got stuck.
-
USAF switching from M16A1 to A2, some squardons still have A1 but most of them are now A2, back in 2000 I trained with A1. Now its A2.
-
BTW. The "advantage" was that it was built for little guys, and girls. The M16 bullet is about half the size of an M14. That means you can hump around twice as much ammo.
I was given that "wounded man ties up three" speech also. I had doubts. If a guy goes down thats the medic's job. You have your own job to do.
-
The 82nd SPS (USAF) got our 1st batch of A2's in 94'. Until then my A1 was stamped "Singer" (for Singer sewing company..hehe).
We also turned in our M-60's in late 93, early 94 about the same time we stopped getting bulk replacement gear and were allowed to "kinda" spend money where we needed it.
Got rid of Tent halves and got 4 man pop tents (very light, roomy and more durable. Also purchased all several heavy duty 4-wheelers for perimeter duty. :D
-
i spite of what you see in hollywood movies, full auto weapons are not meant to fire on continous full auto ( a M14 will enpty a 20 rnd mag in about 2 sec ) for effective fire you shoot in 2-3 rnd bursts , thats why all modern auto weapons have the 1 and 3 rnd selector switch.
-
Not sure what rifle we use but we do have super high tech...
(http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/equip/hab/images/items/Photo5-1_b.jpg)
...underware.
You can also keep abreast of our cutting edge research into the field of...
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/equip/hab/2/253_e.asp
...combat bras.
Heheh, just a small part of the "Clothe the Soldier" program.
[ur][http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/equip/hab/2/2_e.asp[/url]
-
Originally posted by Wingnut_0
........ Also purchased all several heavy duty 4-wheelers for perimeter duty. :D
ATV's or Trucks? We had about 8 ATV's out at Welford back in the late 80's, early 90's. Seemed like everyone who got on one suddenly experienced severe crainial retardation. We could never keep more than 2 on the road at a time.
-
ATV's. We used them strictly for ABGD or the occasional airshow. Never remember any problems except for 1 which was used as a test bed for the ATV off road championships..LOL
-
Originally posted by easymo
I was on the M6O MG most of the time. But when I did carry a rifle, guard duty, ect., it was a M14. We were so refined the M14 had no full auto. (If you had a key there was a switch on the side. But you would just end up shooting at sky.). The M16 was a POS with a stick built into the side, to poke the bullet in, when it got stuck.
Easymo
Your description of the M14 reminded me of a time when I was up at Auburn as a student, and went to the shooting range to try out a muzzleloader I built from a kit. Set up about five or six milk jugs, (and some beer cans), at about 100 yards. My roommate and I were the only ones there, besides the range keeper.
About the time I was getting ready to shoot, a couple rough looking fellows came to the range with a M14, and they proceeded to blast away at my targets until the clip popped out with a distinctive sound. LOL
That M14 pours out some awesome firepower. I think it was set on full auto, and they shot our carefully arranged targets to pieces. I did manage to dead-center hit a couple milk jugs before the M14 got to 'em. Sure made me try harder. I was determined to hit at least one of those jugs. :D
Les
-
I know that in Somalia U.S. Army Rangers and Delta Force Troops had alot of trouble with wounded Somalis. Apparently the .223 rounds did not tumble, nor did they inflict enough damage to even knock a person down (unless shot in the head or heart).
-
.223 = 5.56mm?
-
.223 Remington = 5.56x45 NATO
and no, the 5.56 M16 is not designed to wound... at the 950 m/s it does, the bullet fragments while the temporary cavity (tissue displaced by the impact) from initial bullet impact is still more than fist-size -> very fatal internal wounds.
That's the problem with the M4, where bullet velocity drops under the about critical 900 m/s too fast, causing the bullet not to fragment and penetrate through the target -> small, nonfatal puncture.
As always with weapons of war, they're designed to DROP THE ENEMY (not necessarily kill, but DROP THE SOB right there)
A good link to get started on terminal ballistics: http://www.molonlabe.net/johns/terminal.htm
Also, M16A2 limits fire to single shot and 3rd-bursts, to prevent the ami wimps ;) from just spraying empty the magazine to no effect from prone position/foxholes. M16A1 still has full auto.
-
The problem they were having is a result of the ammo that they were using. They were using geneva convention complient full metal jacket ammo aka ball ammo . Unlike ammo that one would use to kill a deer, it does not expand or mushroom .
-
I heard a story about the M16 years ago, the SAS stopped using them in Malaya because of one major problem. When you hit someone with the butt it did'nt hurt enough. They used the SLR instead which was suitably heavy and hard.
That might not be true tho'!
-
The SAS often uses the m16 .
-
Originally posted by fdiron
I know that in Somalia U.S. Army Rangers and Delta Force Troops had alot of trouble with wounded Somalis. Apparently the .223 rounds did not tumble, nor did they inflict enough damage to even knock a person down (unless shot in the head or heart).
( I want to say up front that I've never been in combat and I'm not 'looking' for the experience. All I know on these topics it what I've read)
I think the use of a local drug call 'Kaat' (sp) might have had something to do with this. The Somalies start chewing it around Noon and in a couple of hours they are 'feeling no pain' physically or mentally. In this state getting hit by a round has no 'shock' effect and they just keep coming.
Finally, if you've ever read the book 'Starship Troopers' (not the moive) you know that the first enemies our hero meets were called the 'Skinnies'. This is the name that US troops started calling the Somalis.
:)
-
M4-A1 has single shot, 3 rd burst and full auto capability.
M4-A2 has just single shot and 3 rd burst.
A1 used by selected groups, like Special Forces etc.
A2 used by conventional forces.
Dago
-
Originally posted by Kratzer
I believe the canadians use the M16A3 with the full auto trigger group. EDIT: that is to say, they have it designated as such... I really don't know if they actually use it...
Was this the same Canadian armed forces group that was deemed unsuitable for combat at the beginning of Desert Storm?
-
My best pal is with 2 para in the Brit Para regiment, and often works with the 22nd guys, and he told me most of them and most of his unit are using M4's built either by Demaco in Canada, or Saber in the UK.
The 5.56 round mentioned above used in Somalia was the SS109 round, which is basically an FMJ round with a steel penetrator inside it. Works fairly well for piercing light armour worn by troops, but tends to not create a large enough temporary stretch category when passing through tissue, hence the lack of knockdown power.
The 7.62x51mm round is still far superior to the 5.56 IMO in all departments, and I've got about 100,000 rounds of it through various M14's, National Match M1A's, HK's, and FNFAL's. 175 gr hollow point boat tail will ruin anyones day out to 800 yards and further, while the 5.56 loses the majority of its punch around the 500/600 yard mark.
I will say that the 5.56 round can be extremely lethal if the right load is used. The stuff that most tactical units buy from us is Hornady TAP rounds, which are nasty with a capitol N. Anything in the T line from about 300 yards in is going down and staying down, period.
As for the M4 discussion, I've got a 14.5" colt M4 as my primary service rifle gun at the moment, and I've whipped guys shooting Match 20" guns in 600 yard run downs, and I find its accuracy within about a half minute of what a 20" rifles is. 62 grain hollow point boat tail rounds are very lethal, and 77 gr even more so, however 14.5" guns have issues with stabilization with the 77's in my experience.
As for the M4 having lethality problems, this is sovled by ammunition selection, although since many regular line units in the USA are getting it, I'm not sure if this is possible for them. Since most infantry shots are 100 yards or less with a main battle rifle statistically, I'm sure troops love it compared to an M16a2 since it's lighter and a hell of a lot handier.
I'd still prefer a good M14/M1A if I had a choice over any rifle, I've yet to find something so easy to shoot and maintain, with such good accuracy. I'll scan in some 1000 meter targets I've shot with my national match.
Was this the same Canadian armed forces group that was deemed unsuitable for combat at the beginning of Desert Storm?
Don't know where this comes from, the troops at Canada dry 1 and 2 were more than capable, and if the PPCLI's performance in Afganistan is any indicator, the US command's praise and their rescuing of US troops and taking on tasks that caused the 10th moutain troops to get 35% casualties from exhaustion while not having a man go down would rectify any past rumours and bs. Not to mention that a Canuck holds the record for longest battlefield killshot (with 50 cal AMAX rounds from my company's inventory btw, :) ). Sorry to go off, I just hate the dissing of Canadian troops when they outperform all other NATO nations in every theater they've operated in historically (Vimy ridge in WW1, Juno beach in WW2, recent actions in Afganistan etc etc).
At the time of Desert Storm, the Canadian brigade in Germany was considered one of THE best, if not THE best units in Nato, and I've got 3 sources, all Amercian that state this, one being the AGW Desert Shield/Storm fact book. Political reasons are mostly to blame for our lack of participation in the actual ground fighting, but our CF18's flew tons of sorties in support of Coalition forces, and dropped a lot of unguided bombs.
Also, the rifle that Canadians use is the C7, which is manufactured in Canada by Demaco. It's a M16 variant with a hammer forged barrel and flat top mounting a 3.5 combat optic called the Elcan. Early Elcans tended to not be very precise, and some even flopped off their mounts, but the latest generations work well, and we mount them on the C6/M249 as well. Our C8 barrels are VERY sought after, being hammer forged as well, and I got my colt M4 upper from a guy in 5th SF group in FT Lewis for a single barrel (well, a Pal got it from me while shooting there with them anyhow).
-
methinks the guy that thinks the m16 is more predictably acurate is wrong. dang .223 flys all over hell . you can drop a guy first shot in a high wind with a m14 at 700 yds over and over and over and over . m16s except for a few match grade ones ive seen are like tonka toys. real crap
-
at 700 yrds no shlt, I don't think an m16 can hit a target at 700meters let a lone produce a shot group . Everyone knows 308 winchester far surpasses remington 223 in range . And no I'm not wrong, field grade m16s are more accurate than field grade m14s . This surprised me too the first time I read it because all I'd ever heard was how much better the m14 was than the m16 .
BTW in my hands the tonka toys produce shot groups that were 75% of the time one hole. Of course I also knocked down the 800meter silouettes with the 7.62 m60, I would never suggest that the m60 is more accurate, those pieces of crap are wildly innacurate .
-
I've shot 1.5 moa groups at 500 meters with a variety of M16/M4 variants, which is about a 8 inch group. Yes, these were good days, with NO wind at all, prone or rested. I can usually shoot a 3 or 4 inch with my Super Match M1A, and 2 inch groups with any of my precision rifles at that range.
Don't write the M16 or 5.56 off at these ranges, they just lack the ft lbs of the 7.62 round.
300 win mag still owns all, at 1000 meters a 180 gr round has more energy than the hotest 44 magnum does at point blank. Unreal.
-
methinks the roadkill is flyin fast and hard . one hole groups with ironsite m16 with no range mentioned mayby at 25 feet. 8 inch groups with a .223 at 500 yards.yea with a match rifle and match ammo and a scope from a sandbaged bench if there is no wind and you got the luck of the irish mayby. otherwise let me take this place to tell you. roadkill.
and you can say all day a m 16 is more accurate than a m14 but all things equal the guy with the 14 is gonna drop your bellybutton .m16 with .223 is lighter that is its only advantage. and you dont have to clean the m14 every 10 friggin minutes to be resonably shure it wont jam either unlike the m16.
m16 is just another insider deal with the military there are better rifles and cheaper rifles and better&cheaper at the same time rifles who cares m16 roxxors baby . sigh
-
Umm weapons are zerod at 25 meters, of course I'm sure you know allready knew that . And the tests were done at varying ranges up to max effective, I'm sure you know what that is too .
BTW When is the last time you qualified ?
Ever notice those units that can carry what ever weapon they choose, SAS etc. consistently choose m16s variants, they must be full of BS too .
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
m16 is just another insider deal with the military there are better rifles and cheaper rifles and better&cheaper at the same time rifles who cares m16 roxxors baby . sigh
You're right dude it's a global conspiracy perpetrated for 30 years by NATO and Warsaw pact to keep the m14 and the AK47 down.
Me thinks guys like you are the reason there is a market for periodicals like Guns&Ammo and Shotgun news . Go to school and get your B4 identifier, then when you talk shop and call people liars you opinions might have some validity .
-
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 .
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.
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
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.
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). 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 said it, it is cheaper and lighter than the m14, it is also more accurate at ranges less than 400m . Can it knock down the 800m silouettes ? No, it's not supposed to . Anybody who is engaging a target farther than 400m with any rifle without optics is wasting ammo . Only 10% of average soldiers can hit a 300m man sized silouette with an m16 or an m14 . Only time I've ever seen malfunctioning become problematic with the m16 is when using blanks . Every modern military uses 5.56 or 5.45 assault rifles. USA, Russia, UK, Australia, Austria, Germany, France well all of europe, Korea, Isreal I could go on . Only countries still using 30cal battle rifles, ak47, FAL, FNL are third world.
Oh and Gman 5th group is in Ft Riley Kansas, Ft Lewis is 1rst Group HQ .
-
Now that's a rifle:D
-
Or a remarkable likeness :)
-
Originally posted by Monk
Now that's a rifle:D
Nice Rifle... what caliber?
Just got another Model 700 Police today. Its my first .308 caliber rifle. I'll place it next to my Model 700 Sendero 7mm STW.
I'm getting a chuckle out of the M14 vs M16 debates. Both are fine guns. The M14 didn't take quite as long to develop... but does anyone know if its been tested in a battlefield yet?
One thing... I'd take the M16 over the G-3s and Galil's outfitting many military units these days. I still recall the reactions of most M16 sceptics when things were presented on a level field. Always that of suprise.
I do have alot of M16/AR-15 experience... I don't have any M14 experience. I wonder how many posting here have any real experience with either outside of what they've read or shooting at 25yards during basic training.
It reminds me of the debates that revolved around the military switching to the Baretta 92 for the official sidearm. All of the hypothetical arguments were hillarious. Truth be told.. the Baretta was just the better 9mm sidearm at the time. Of course, it wasn't better than the .45... but that is an entirely different thing;)
AKDejaVu
-
methinks the roadkill is flyin fast and hard . one hole groups with ironsite m16 with no range mentioned mayby at 25 feet. 8 inch groups with a .223 at 500 yards
Notice I said "variants" and "prone" before. :/
I've got an Armalite ar10T with a M3lr 3.5-10x Leupold on it which will shoot .75 MOA at 500 still, so you do the math. That's a lot better than 8 inches, which you claim is "bs". Les Baer makes a target AR variant thats GURANTEED to shoot .5 MOA or BETTER. http://www.cfiarms.com/vn/lesbaer/01:LBRSV?token=PwymYCY2PUvgFEKQJ8RhRQ . I also shoot on the order of 2000 rounds through my AR/M4 variants a month in either service rifle matches or practising for them. Shooting 1.5 MOA with a match Ar15 at these ranges is so commonplace where I shoot that I boggled as to why it's even being debated.
As for the M14/AR argument you put forward, it depends on the rifle. Take an absolutely stock M14 from any manufacturer, including Springfield, and a stock M16/AR15A2, it'll come down to the shooter at ranges less than 500 meters IMO.
I've never seen a basic M14 you can still find in Canada (a lot of winchesters for some reason) shoot that great, but the 3 different Springfield M1A's I've got all shoot satisfactorily, with the Super Match being in the "quite good" category. But a 1000$ AR10T, which is 3x less expensive than a Super Match will outshoot it to 600 meters all day long in my experience.
(http://members.shaw.ca/gcornish/pictures/Oct28$04.JPG)
This is my range from the 700 meter mark, which is about half way up from the maximum distance.
I've also shot in a US Navy course at Ft. Lewis last year with some guys from my company who were training Vancouver City Tactical at the time, and I shot a 460 12x , with the paper work signed off by the commander who oversaw it, with my Colt M4 (pic below) the first time I used it with IVI 62gr SS109 ammo, so please don't "bs" people be saying these rifles are inaccurate or pieces of junk. I've had 4 stopages in the last 2500 rounds through my AR15A2, and I only cleaned it 3 times in all that shooting. IMO the reliability issues are crap so long as you take care of your stuff, and replace parts when you are supposed to.
(http://members.shaw.ca/gcornish/pictures/m4.JPG)
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
Nice Rifle... what caliber?
I do have alot of M16/AR-15 experience... I don't have any M14 experience. I wonder how many posting here have any real experience with either outside of what they've read or shooting at 25yards during basic training.
Raises hand .
Side note, the 25m paper is used for zeroing your battlesight only. At least when I went to basic training the targets ranged from 50m to 300m pop ups . And the rounds I fired in basic training amount to less that one percent of all the ammo I used during my whole gig .
Oh dear I've been reduced to autofellatio exhibitionism .
-
Ah.. no need to support yourself there Samm... it isn't really like that.
You can see from the argument just who has/has not had experience with the weapons they are comparing.
Like I said... I have tons of M-16/AR-15 experience (own an AR-15).. but feel it may be difficult to compare to a weapon I don't have any experience with.
I do believe that it would be tough for one to be much better than ther other. The M16 is a fine weapon that has been battle tested and redsigned and then battle tested again. Its a hard one to beat.
AKDejaVu
-
Just got another Model 700 Police today
Now you need a stock for it! <--Blatent sales attempt.
(http://members.shaw.ca/gcornish/pictures/awp.jpg)
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. :/
-
What company is that gman?
BTW.. missed the M4 photo above the first time around... nice rifle.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
Nice Rifle... what caliber?
.308. It's a M40A1, hand built in Quantico, VA.
.....Yum Yum:D
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.[
-
"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?
-
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.
-
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
-
Now children! :D
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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
-
jungle fighting in the air force . you are truly a rare bird ill give you that. what combat medal whould that be out of curiosity?
the m16 had been used for a long while and is obviously a servicable rifle after 3 or 4 redesigns, it is my contention that the rifle replaced a better ( in terms of stopping power ( considering the geneva convention wont allow most ammo solutions to the lack of stoping power and damage cause by the rifle) i am aware of the tumbling of the projectile once inside the target was designed to give alot of the effects of higer damage projectiles without breaking the rules of war.
now that said the .223 is a balisticaly inferior round less of everything than the .308/7.62 it replaced. it in my experience and alot of others is the m 16 is a wepon very prone to jamming in field conditions ( yea even on a boat the rifles get dirty go figgure). keep it real clean or it jams this is plain old unacceptable in a military wepon. the m14 was better in every way but weight and recoil. you guys own them and im telling you your multi thousand dollar m16 is junk next to a 400 or 500 buck m14 shure you dont like it . but that dosent change it.
the m16 is a less accurate rifle in real life situations than the m 14. always was always will be. hey but you look like a cool sas wanabe at the gun range.
samm said the oposite about acuracy and said he had tests to prove it . well where are they ?
-
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.
ROFL with apologies to TOWD.
TOWD where's the love man? Group hug people!
-
Who is TOWD? I see "Toad", but no "TOWD".
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
samm said the oposite about acuracy and said he had tests to prove it . well where are they ?
No I didn't .
I said that in tests field grade m16a2s consistantly produced tighter shot groups (this means more accurate) than field grade m14s, that is true look it up I'm not going to do it for you .
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
jungle fighting in the air force . you are truly a rare bird ill give you that. what combat medal whould that be out of curiosity?
I'm sorry towd... you obviously don't know nearly as much about military goings on as you seem to think you do. I'll let you try to figure that one out for yourself. The timeframe was around 92-93.the m16 had been used for a long while and is obviously a servicable rifle after 3 or 4 redesigns, it is my contention that the rifle replaced a better ( in terms of stopping power ( considering the geneva convention wont allow most ammo solutions to the lack of stoping power and damage cause by the rifle) i am aware of the tumbling of the projectile once inside the target was designed to give alot of the effects of higer damage projectiles without breaking the rules of war.
Stopping power... hmmmm. I guess if you believe that is the end all be all of assault weapons you might be correct. But I get the feeling quite a few people think there's more to it than that. It seems to be the rest of it that's being overlooked.now that said the .223 is a balisticaly inferior round less of everything than the .308/7.62 it replaced.
Inferior in what capacity? I know you aren't simply saying one round is better than another. It would not make sense to try to compare the inferiority/superiority of two vastly different calibers.it in my experience and alot of others is the m 16 is a wepon very prone to jamming in field conditions ( yea even on a boat the rifles get dirty go figgure). keep it real clean or it jams this is plain old unacceptable in a military wepon.
I question your "experience" and tend to think that legend is the main contributor to this belief. I've always found this to be the case when people sit around talking about guns rather than using them. the m14 was better in every way but weight and recoil.
ummm... if you only look at numbers that might be correct. I will contend that an M-16 is far and away easier to bring on target and fire a round off quicker. The sights are excellent and open... Its a very easy gun to maneuver and use. That in and of itself is the most critical think I can think of when designing an assault rifle. you guys own them and im telling you your multi thousand dollar m16 is junk next to a 400 or 500 buck m14 shure you dont like it . but that dosent change it.
I find this quite ironic. I don't own an M-14 because I can't afford one. An AR-15 is much more reasonably priced. You can actually find m14's for less than $1200 anywhere? I could find mini-14's at comparable prices to AR-15s but not any large caliber weapons.
But please... don't leat actual costs stand in the way of your bias... keep leaning and exagerating all you want. It helps prove other people's point.the m16 is a less accurate rifle in real life situations than the m 14. always was always will be. hey but you look like a cool sas wanabe at the gun range.
Real life situations? What would those be? I'm curious here because you really seem to be pulling this one out of your ass. An M-14 is great if you are shooting prone or over the hood of a car and have to cover a great distance. The M-16 is great if you are standing or moving and have to bring the weapon on target. Now... which one is more condusive to combat?samm said the oposite about acuracy and said he had tests to prove it . well where are they ?
He said he read it... which is the equivilent of your experience and what you've "heard".
AKDejaVu
-
Well after a very short search here is some info I found from none other than the Us Navy shooting team's webpage.
original version of the M16 malfunctioned too easily during part of the Vietnam War. Lessons learned, the M16 has been improved periodically over the years and today, in its M16A2 configuration, it is the most accurate service rifle employed in the world though not necessarily the most reliable mechanically.
Here's more.
Civilian and military armorers have developed modifications to the M16, making it the most accurate service rifle, for target shooting competitions, except at the longest distances, where it rivals but does always outperform the M14.[/i]
And yes I realise it they're not talking about fieldgrade m16s, or fieldgrade m14s for that matter . I'm sure if I did some more digging I would come up with a lot more information, but I'm not the loud mouth telling people they're full of toejam .
-
If by stopping power you mean hydrostatic shock consider this; the muzzle velocity of the m14 is 2800fps, the muzzle velocity of the m16a2 is 3100fps . The problem of the .223" projectile yaw and tumble at >450m was corrected by increasing the rifling twist from 12" to 7" in the m16a2 . I agree that the 7.62mm nato round is a better choice, for sniper rifles and machine guns . But for service rifles a smaller, faster projectile is preferable .
-
Here, I'm going to post some data from the course my company teaches to Law Enforcement units regarding the 5.56 and 7.62 round performance.
One thing that should be established is that bullet types and weights make a huge difference, as does barrel twist, as mentioned in a post above.
Bullet Comparison: 223 vs 208
Fed .223 69 gr match:
Foot lbs:
Muzzle = 1380 ft/lb, 200m=925 ft/lb, 400m=475ft/lb, 600m=375 ft/lb, 1000m=170 ft/lb.
Drift in 10 MPH 90 degree crosswind
100m = .9 inches, 200m = 3.7 inches, 400m = 16.3 inches, 600m = 41.3 inches, 1000m = 140 inches.
Trajectory for 100m Zero
100m = zero, 200m = -3.2", 400m = -28.3", 600m = -89.4", 800m = -207", 1000m = -405".
Federal 175 gr HBPT Match .308
Foot pounds:
Muzzle = 2520 ft/lb, 200m= 1870 ft/lb, 400m= 1355ft/lb, 600m=970 ft/lb, 1000m=510 ft/lb
Drift in 10 MPH 90 degree crosswind
100m = .8 inches, 200m = 3.1 inches, 400m = 13.6 inches, 600m = 33.3 inches, 1000m = 107 inches.
Trajectory for 100m Zero
100m = zero, 200m = -4.5", 400m = -35.5, 600m = -105", 800m = -228", 1000m = -421".
Wound Data:
Same rounds as above
.223
Permanent wound channel depth: 13.2"
Permanent wound channel diameter: .45"
Maximum Temporary Stretch Diameter: 3.3"
Number of Significant Fragments: 8
.308
Permanent wound channel depth: 22.0"
Permanent wound channel diameter: .7"
Maximum Temporary Stretch Diameter: 6.4"
Number of Significant Fragments: 3-5
This data confirms what everyone has pretty much agreed to here, that the 7.62x51mm round is a lot more devestating than the 5.56x45mm round. Against informal media, such as car doors, light metal plating, trees, sandbags, and soil, the 7.62 FAR outperforms the 5.56.
This being said however, this discussion has centered around accuracy, and as you can see from the data above, barring any medium or higher winds, the 5.56 has a less bloopy trajectory than the 7.62 round. All this baloney about "omg the 5.56 cant hit toejam at 500 meters" is the talk of the less informed shooter, who spends less time than others pulling the trigger and working up new loads, and studying the scientific data that is aquired by the combination of doing both. The force greatly affecting bullet flight barring any wind is GRAVITY. Sure, the rotation and stabilization of the round plays a part, and this directly relates to the rifle, particularly the headspace gap and barrel performance, but in general shooting community experience, there is little to give either way between the 5.56 and 7.62 in this department when fired from M16's and M14's, both being semi-auto rifles, with the M14 legendary for poor headspace without work.
Therefore: Wind not being a factor, as I previously specified in posts 1-4, as did others, the 5.56 IS an inherently more accurate round due to the fact that gravity has less time to affect it, and in fact affects it less (see the trajectory figures). This, again, is of course barring any wind, as wind affects the crosssection of the smaller 5.56 more than the larger 7.62 strangely enough, mostly due to the law that an object in motion stays in motion along a direct vector, with the heavier (7.62 has nearly 3x more mass) being harder to move off course. Regarding the wind, consider that BOTH rounds at 400meters in only a 10mph crosswind are OVER A FOOT off target, which is not much smaller than the width of a likely enemy, and most certainly out of the T-line area of his body when facing head on. Again, the talk of "5.56 cant hit jack in wind but 7.62 can" is overzealous praise for the 7.62 at least.
I think we can all agree that the 7.62 hits much harder, and has far greater effects, reaching into the 10x that of the 5.56 when all the info is considered. If I could keep only one of the 25+ guns I have from time to time, not counting what is in company inventory, I't would be a 7.62 rifle, likely an M1A of some description, and about 25 mags for it.
-
Gman,
Can I be on your side? :)
-
Just grab a .460 Weatherby and shadaaap!
-
M16A2.....best assault rifle in the world.
Trust me.;)
-
WOW a gun thread with no talk of registering, banning or the 2nd amendment !
I like it :)
-
From what I can remember…
I have the information loaded in the noggin that is telling me the reason for the 3 round burst was to conserve ammunition and to promote accuracy instead of spray and pray. The original A2’s had a full flash suppressor on them with some talk of making an initial aim at the lower abdomen and letting the natural recoil walk the barrel up the target. The intention was to get one or two shots center mass. I seem to think I had this pumped into me at basic.
Whether or not that is fact makes no difference because the flash suppressor on the A2 was changed to have a solid bottom with excess exhaust blowing up to steady the barrel for the next shot.
As for automatic… I could make one fire damn near automatic on three round burst just by pulling the trigger quickly.
As for distance, if my memory is correct the farthest target to qualify in the ARMY was set at 300 meters and when it popped you had all the time you needed to adjust.
Reason for the 5.56 caliber, ammunition weight and wounding affect. Standard load for a grunt used to be 200 rounds along with everything else. The wounding theory, it takes a few to remove the dead after the battle but it can take up to 5 each to assist someone wounded during the battle.
And for what it’s worth I thought it was a fine weapon.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
WOW a gun thread with no talk of registering, banning or the 2nd amendment !
I like it :)
I say we register the 2nd Amendment, then ban it.
-
Wow, can't believe I read this whole thread! Learned something too, about the superiority of the M16 over the M14 (Whatever Lord Dolf Vadr aka Towd says is absolutely 180 deg from the truth 99.9999 % of the time)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I say we register the 2nd Amendment, then ban it.
Just for that I am going to start a religion thread !!!
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Just for that I am going to start a religion thread !!!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo! I was kidding I swear to God! oops!
-
M16 is deadly accurate... never can tell what kind of damage it'll do though since the bullet tumbles. sometimes passes 'cleanly' through.. sometimes blows out the back.. sometimes re-directs.
it's why the Coast Guard issues them for boarding parties.. that and a 45 automatic for the up-close stuff.
I sure miss those fine weapons...
-
Ok I need to ask a question. I have seen two posts here that reference 7.62 x 51. Darned if I can find this ammo anywhere else. My ammo boxes all say 7.62 x 54. I have also seen x45 and x39, is the x51 a typo or is there something out there that I can't get?
-
but I'd have to change my ID to towd.
lol DejaVu
-
I have seen a lot of "this, and that, happened on the range". That would be great if wars were fought on rifle ranges. I have carried both the M14, and the M16 in combat operations. In fairness, I should mention, I used the M16 only one time. It jammed on the third round, firing in semi auto mode. I never tried it again. In answer to the, just keep it clean, argument. Let me ask. Have you ever tried to do this in the field, in the middle of a jungle? In Vietnam you could literally, pour gun oil over the thing, and the next morning there would be a thin coat of rust on all metal parts. We went so far as to put Turtle wax on the external parts to slow this process. It only slowed it a little.
Also I see a lot of concern about wind. I don't remember once being concerned about the wind. What I did have reason to think about, was bullet deflection caused by hitting a twig, or some elephant grass. Being heavier, and "hotter", The 7.62 was less prone to deflection.
Mostly, combat came down to, you see a bunch of muzzle flash's in the bushes over there. You shoot at them. If you hit something, you want him out of the fight. Not bleeding, and firing back.
-
I agree Easymo, however the M16 and primarily it's ammunition are much different than what is used today, and I say this not for your benefit, as I know you know this. Everbody now know how you guys got screwed over with the M16a1 and its ammo in vietnam, and I'm not going to get into that, as you have far more reason to be PO'd about it than anyone else on this board.
I've never had the pleasure of SE asia, but I've shot a lot of rounds in conditions that are similar, and the modern day AR rifles work just as bad/poorly as do M14's. In fact, in the -40 weather I've shot in the AR's work better. Yes, this is on the range, and not combat, but I've shot a lot of courses of fire that don't let you clean your rifle while firing hundreds of rounds, and the AR's let me down no more or less often than any other rifle.
I agree with Easymo regarding the M14/M1A, and as I said before, it would be my first pick for any situation.
As for the 7.62x54 question above, that is Russian/Soviet block 7.62 ammo, used in various lmg's and rifles, the Draganov being an example. Do NOT try to chamber and fire that stuff in any .308 rifles, as they are the 7.62x51mm caliber.
-
Easymo... I agree with everything you said...
But that was then and this is now.
Part of the reason people like towd say the things they do is from talking to people like you and thinking it still applies today.
We'd all look like love muffines telling you it was something you did wrong with your M-16 back there and pretending like we know better. Others do the same thinking that is all there is to the M-16 and there aint no more to say about it.
AKDejaVu
-
Part of the reason people like towd say the things they do is from talking to people like you and thinking it still applies today.
ak cop
ok here is the translation. towd was right all along easymo and i respect you (unlike towd who hast the pomposity to dissagre with me and not back down)and realize you just said the exact same thing towd did but i dont like towd so i will try to assasinate his charachter and call him a instagating liar becaues i dont like him or the bad things he says about my endless posting of meanhearted drivil on these boards. so i will make a post insinuating vaguely the redesigned m16a2 is much better than the 1970 one it has a 40 grain heavier .22 slug than that one you had that was a piece of junk. makes a huge difference really it does really im not kiddin.
i appologise for the harsh tone to samm in the beggining you are obviously a gun enthousaiast who loves the sport . and i dont dought every thing you said is trur . but i heartly dissagree with the results of the tests on m16 vs m14 but the circumstaces of tests are all important and we havent discussed those at all. without details there is nothing to argue about
as far as ak deja vu read above to determine my oppinion of you
and toad your right i do seem angry but ak de ja vu is no stranger to flamin he came in here lookin for troubleand hes found it. my discription of his bbs persona was not vulgar and in my oppinion was totaly accurate. ( more vulgarity acctualy i beleive would have been more accurate to my feelings but what can you do? rules and all)
mayby hes a nice guy in real life stranger stuff has happened but here he aint.
TOWD
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
Part of the reason people like towd say the things they do is from talking to people like you and thinking it still applies today. ak cop
ok here is the translation. towd was right all along easymo and i respect you (unlike towd who hast the pomposity to dissagre with me and not back down)and realize you just said the exact same thing towd did but i dont like towd so i will try to assasinate his charachter and call him a instagating liar becaues i dont like him or the bad things he says about my endless posting of meanhearted drivil on these boards. so i will make a post insinuating vaguely the redesigned m16a2 is much better than the 1970 one it has a 40 grain heavier .22 slug than that one you had that was a piece of junk. makes a huge difference really it does really im not kiddin.
And you still don't get it. :rolleyes:
Some (say towd) were arguing about the way the M-16 was. Using feeble experience with the weapon as some kind of off-handed justification for their arguments but mostly relying on the stories told from 30 years ago.
Others have a bit more recent experience with the weapon and know better.
Its called the having the ability to learn from past mistakes and take corrective action. Personally, I don't expect you to understand either towd.i appologise for the harsh tone to samm in the beggining you are obviously a gun enthousaiast who loves the sport . and i dont dought every thing you said is trur . but i heartly dissagree with the results of the tests on m16 vs m14 but the circumstaces of tests are all important and we havent discussed those at all.
And how many people had to pile on board to illicit this apology towd? sheesh.without details there is nothing to argue about
LOL! Its called backpedalling towd. Nicely done.as far as ak deja vu read above to determine my oppinion of you
I did. And I think anyone else that does will take it for what it is worth just as I did. Of course... that oppinion of me says alot about you too.and toad your right i do seem angry but ak de ja vu is no stranger to flamin he came in here lookin for troubleand hes found it. my discription of his bbs persona was not vulgar and in my oppinion was totaly accurate. ( more vulgarity acctualy i beleive would have been more accurate to my feelings but what can you do? rules and all)
Stop for one second towd... read your first post... then move to your second post... then to your third. Find one that wasn't attacking one or more people. I challenge you.
Don't sit here and say "but he did it too... after his 3rd post... after I'd pretty much called him and everyone else idiots".
My god towd... you have the inate ability to enter a thread, insult everyone, then fault people for responding. I've not seen you do anything else on this BBS.
mayby hes a nice guy in real life stranger stuff has happened but here he aint.
TOWD
And how do you view yourself here towd? Would you say you're a nice guy? Or are you throwing this out simply because you made your first apology on the bbs?
Sorry dude.... but you have a long way to go before you are deemed an unbiased critic on social behavior.
AKDejaVu
-
My momma says life is like a box of chocolates...
-
cherries HB.. just waiting to be uh.. "plucked" :eek:
-
Thank you lord dolf vader, apology accepted . I think we agree on more things than we disagree on .
-
I am far from an expert on firearms although I grew up on a farm where handling firearms was an expected skill that we all had to learn. In the Air Force I have had occasion to fire both the M-16A1 and the M-16A2. I have never fired the M-14 but I know enough about it to know that all three of these rifles are excellent weapons. However, there is much truth to the statements about the M-16 being somewhat prone to jamming. On almost every occasion that I have fired an M-16 either myself or somebody on the range with me has had a serious jam. All the older Army veterens that I have ever talked to have assured me that the M-14 was not prone to this type of behaviour. To my mind the most important quality of a combat weapon above all others is reliability. Stopping power and accuracy are nice, but if it dont go bang when you pull the trigger, neither does you any good. That is what makes the AK-47 such a great weapon. It isnt terribly accurate, and it doesnt have all that powerful of a cartridge really. What it does have is absolute reliability under all conditions. The M-1 and M-14 had this as well, and because of that my personal choice in combat would be to carry an M-14. Note that the Navy SEALs and the US Army Special forces have both brought back the M-14 for limited usage in some situations.
There are many factors that go into the choice of a primary weapon other than accuracy and stopping power, although those are certainly very important. M-16 has many other advantages over the M-14. It is lighter, no small deal when you have to carry it all day. It has smaller ammunition, which means that all else being equal, you can carry more rounds. It is easier to strip down and care for in the field. The main advantage the M-14 has is reliability. The M-14 does have one drawback though, and I think only one person has mentioned it so far. Everybody I have talked to that used them, says that they are nearly uncontrollable under full auto fire. However, I believe that the M-14 is misused when fired on full-auto. It should be fired single shot to make all shots count. I would take the M-14 if it was my choice of a rifle to carry in a combat situation, but that is just my opinion.
I see that Israel is going to the M-16 in many cases now, instead of their own Galil. The Israelis have had quite a lot of experience in infantry type fighting, so they are experts in my book. If the M-16 is good enough for them, it is a pretty good weapon. The bottom line is both the M-16 and M-14 are fine weapons, and they each have their strengths and weaknesses. The M-16 is simply the more modern weapon, and now that many of the reliability issues have been worked out, it may be considered among the very best assault rifles ever.
-
Most malfuctions of the m16 can be corrected in a second or two . The m60 jams MUCH more frequently than any weapon I had ever used, add this to the fact that machine guns tend to suck up dirt by nature. You're combining an open feed mechanism as opposed to a magazine, with a muzzle blast kicking up much dirt and dust . And unlike the m16 the m60 design was never modified to expedite corrective measures . As one marine was quoted saying when the m240 began replacing the m60, "Unlike the m60, this one works" .
And don't even get me started on the accuracy . Hitting targets with the m60 in my experience was an exercise in indirect fire, with your assistant gunner correcting your aim, since the bullets were impacting out of your line of sight while aiming .
-
The M60 is good for one thing... making noise.
I spoke with some commandos that were in a ridge to ridge shootout with some guerillas. It was mostly just people holding guns up and pointing them in a general direction and firing. The commandos had M4s and the guerillas had sub-machine guns. The firefight went on for about 5 minutes before the commandos opened up with an M60 and started firing it across the ridge.
The return fire stopped immediately. The guerillas decided to be elsewhere.
I've heard a similar story from my grandfather in WW2. He was on a mobile artillery vehicle that was equiped with a .50 cal machine gun. One night, there was particularly heavy gunfire going on when some soldiers came up to him and asked to borrow the .50 cal. My grandfather oblidged and the soldiers lugged the .50 away and my grandfather heard it going off about 30 minutes later. When the .50 stopped being fired... all gunfire had ceased. The soldiers returned a few hours later and said thanks as they remounted the gun for him.
I find those stories both to be humorous. Its allways the biggest kid on the block that gets the most respect. ;)
AKDejaVu
-
When we were bored in Beirut, and wanted a challenge we would snipe with a M2, a great sniping "gun":)
-
"The M60 is good for one thing... making noise."
That depends on who you are fighting.
My dad was a Machine gunner in Korea. He has told me stories of The NK's human wave attacks. They would blow bugles, beat on pots, anything to make noise. And charge U.S, positions in waves. He was amazed at their determination. He told me. "As the bodies would pile up in front of my gun. I would have to get up and push them out of the way, to clear my field of fire".
Not an M60 of course. But the point is the same.