Replies to "The M16"

Reply #1

From: Drake Mallard (hyperduck@hotmail.com)
Date: Friday, February 28, 2003 1:24 PM

Good afternoon.
I stumbled upon your article over lunch, and I was suprised to find your article on the M16A2 vs the AK74 While I may be the first to tell you, I'll scream it. YOU'RE RIGHT! I'm thrilled to know that I'm not the only person on this planet that thinks that gun is overrated. Tell all those other peons that stick up for that peice of trash to go get bent. The damn thing jams twice a clip, if ANY sand gets in it, it shits itself, and there's at least 50 other design flaws within the gun itself. That and the average joe wouldn't know how to operate it unless shown. What this military needs is a fail proof, idiot proof, (Army proof) and MORE FRICKIN RELIABLE weapon. Although I believe the muzzle speed and armor penetration of the M16 outweigh the AK, (Not sure, dont quote me) I believe that the reliability of the AK more then makes up for this shortcoming.

Thanks for reading, and for your time.

-A1C Rogers
USAF

       Wow, thanks. I am not and do not claim to be an expert on fire arms, and I kind of expected to be given the asshole by a lot of people for that one. I didn't expect kudoes from a serviceman though...

       This is by far the most informative reply to anything I have ever written before...

Reply #2

From: Gun Muse (gunmuse@thegunmuse.com)
Date: Monday, March 10th, 2003 9:43 PM

Hello

I am sending you info on a New Ar-15 and Ar-10 System from Tactics Professional Systems During recent product shoots against The Top Named Ar-15's The Tactic's System Pro-5 has Out Performed All companies Hands down. This Weapon was built and designed as part of a Squad level sniper potential. I.E. Standard military Ball Ammo but with 1000yard capabilities. The amount of technology in this rifle is Unheard of in a production gun.

Of course we as competitive as this market is we can't give you all of our secrets but we can say that we have set New Standards of thinking for the Military and our competition is falling short.  We can produce 1250 per month. Replacing the drag on Bushmaster, Les Baur, Wilson and Colt not keeping up with manufacturing. Truthfully their production cuts are not reflective of the customer requests for product we saw last year.  Of course sales will fall off if you have nothing to sell. Once our rifle hits the target shoots we know word of mouth alone won't keep them on the shelves for long. We have taken steps to make SURE this happens.

The Pro-5 and Pro-10 is a NEW Technology that is California Legal. We sell it in both configurations as an Upper or Complete gun. So it can be mailed directly to your customers. Allowing them to purchase just a lower locally or utilize the one they have. This will help open back up the California Market.  Its important to note this is not just another AR. We can produce multiple calibers doubling the sale to the same customer. We can put it on ANY Lower with ZERO reduction in Accuracy our rifle just uses the lower as a hammer and nothing more no dependency on the quality of the lower to achieve Top Accuracy. The Secret to this flexibility is that each barrel is a different length do to a custom Building process that cuts the length to the accuracy of that barrels specific rifle twist. We measure the twist after the rifling is cut. I.e. 1:7.98 and 1.8.05 would have different barrel lengths. We also will cut barrels for Different Bullet weights matching the shooter with their Rifle Perfectly. Not so with other companies. By doing this we ensure the bullet rotates exactly 2.3 times and that gives us the same POI (point of Impact) Reducing how we talk about accuracy from Minutes of angle to Secs. Our rifle is rated at 1/10th Minute of angle at the Army Sniper school test shoot.

We have 100 units on the floor and ready to go in 223 and 30 in 7.62x39. That can be in UPS before the Weekend. This rifle is battle proven and in Combat in Africa as we speak.

Custom Calibers. Custom calibers such as 22ppc 7mm-8 and 6.5-08, 50BMG all can be produced within 2 weeks.

We will be sponsoring the first ALL Women Sniper team through Armed females of America This org has an 80,000 readers on its list for their email updates and will be introducing the sniper school to its members As a standard and inform members where product is located as soon as we have a small network of outlets in place. GunMuse has over 2.4 million readers for its list right now and will introduce the dealers that decide to carry to the product and point the dealers back to Distributors that are carrying our line. Any questions please feel free to call or Email me today. I have attached some photo's for you to see the look and effect of our product at 1000yrds.

You can watch a demo of our product at Tactics Professional Services This is a Large Flash load (190k) so please be patient if your on a modem.

For a Price list email me at this address.

If you have Customers Waiting for a Premium Product you need to do business with us. Larger Profit Margins, Fewer Delays, Better Product and Service, and to say it one more time LARGER PROFIT MARGINS. We know retailers need the wiggle room to be able to Trade and still make cash. Its built into this product.

gunmuse@thegunmuse.com

Donny Lairson
The Gun Muse
We represent the companies that represent you.
505 347 2555
 

       I had a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when I realized a few lines through that this was pretty much a sales pitch. While it's very informative, it is by nature biased, since it wants to sell you the described product. It's still an excellent reply, even though it's a fucking commercial.

Reply #4

hey boy!!! You think US have weapons in this world huh... I think Russia have many accuracy weapon than your military. AK 47 are cheap than M16. M16 is heavy and fuck.. America go to hell

       Does that seem like the rantings of a drunken Chinaman?

Reply #5

WITH YOU 100%. WELL IN VIETNAM, I WISHED FOR MY GOOD OLD M-14 BACK. HEAVY, YES , BUT IT NEVER LET ME DOWN. THE M-16; IF YOU GOT IT TO FIRE OFF ON A MUDDY DAY WAS GREAT, NOT VERY RELIABLE THOUGH. AND ALL YOU MATCH SHOOTERS OUT THERE WHO CARRY THEIR RE-MODIEFIED WITH STAINLESS AND BALANCED WEAPON IN A FELT LINED CASE, AND SHOOT ONE ROUND PER HOUR, TRY IT IT THE RAIN, MUD, AND/OR SAND LIKE YOUR LIFE DEPENDED ON IT!! WE WILL THEN SEE HOW YOU WOULD FEEL NOT KNOWING WHEN AND IF THE M-16 WOULD SAVE YOUR LIFE OR NOT.

RON HOLZ
4TH INFANTRY DIVISION, VIETNAM, 1966/1968 (GRUNT)

       I was hoping that someone who had used this weapon in combat would send such a reply. Thank you very much, sir. Anyone who disagrees now can eat my shit!

Reply #6

ya i think ur right, i heard that the newer version of the Ak was a lot more accurate, plz tell me a little more about the gun

       I think ya meam the AN94, the weapon the Russians can't afford to mass produce, and you have to be kidding if ya think I am going to send you a personal report.

Reply #7

I agree with you dude. But I have to tell you that the AKM the modernized version of AK47 is still used by some special forces in Russia, because it is a VERY reliable weapon. ANd now Russia has the new AK's out which are much better then the AK74. There is the new AK74M ak101,102,103, and the AK107, which is a major step in gun production itself. Also there id the Abakan rifle which some people say is even better then the AK series rifle. But again you are right and anyone who doubts what you say can check numerous weapon sites on the net and see that most o the armies in the world have some version of AK, or an AK clone, or a mix of an AK technology and their own ideas (ex. Galil, VZ58, Finnish rifles etc.)

       And I thought I was going to piss a lot of people off with this one...

Reply #8

Hi,

I read a couple of messages from US military guys, and would like to add a short remark from the Other Side (so to speak). Can't say anything bad about M16, have never fired one. But as a former Soviet officer can testify great reliability of the good old Kalash. Even if you try to do anything on purpose (short from smashing it with a sledgehammer), it will probably work. And it's as simple as a spoon. Back in the USSR times we had a lot of young soldiers from Asian regions, they could hardly speak Russian, leave alone understanding special technical terms, yet even they learned how to disassemble/assemble AK in no time. I shot both AKM and AK74, I liked the latter more, though it was not very popular in the Afgani war, because its 5,45 mm bullet was kind of too light and unstable and could be easily deviated from the target even by thin bush branches, high grass, etc. So guys preferred to stick to the older 7,62mm AKM instead... I like the look of M16, it's sort of elegant (in a way), and I hear it's light and accurate, but in a war you'd prefer to have something more robust and reliable, I guess... I read that Izhevsk plant is now marketing a special NATO edition of Kalashnikov (adopted for the NATO standard ammo). Yet I'm sure US Government will never arm its Armed Forces with a foreign rifle, especially Russian. It's political - national pride and all that... And I think this is right, although not very rational and pragmatic maybe.

As for AN (Abakan) rifle, many people tend to think it's kind of upgrade of the AK because it looks very much like Kalashnikov. But it's a completely different weapon. More sopthisticated, and some people say EVEN MORE reliable than Kalashnikov, but it lacks it's simplicity and yes, it's expensive. So it will hardly will ever replace AK, if you want my opinion. It will be purchased by special units of police and the army, and - illegally - by criminals, but it's not a proper toy for an average soldier. I guess it will repeat the fate of the Thompson gun - a great piece of weaponry, but due to its expensiveness it's now more associated with gangster movies than with US Army documentaries...

Wow and this was supposed to be a short remark!

Igor

       I've been an internet junkie for ages, but I am still amazed how far the written word can sometimes travel...

Reply #9

Now, I guess I fall into the category of one of the idiots that will argue with you.

I know many other servicemen who praise the M16. Also grunts.

I believe the AR-15/M16 is a very reliable weapon. My AR-15 has gotten gritty and kept on shooting. I live in a desert environment. Of course, I haven't been in real combat, but I know some people who have and they've been pleased with it.

Is it as reliable as a Kalashnikov? No. In my opinion, nothing is. I do believe the M16 is one of the most reliable weapons, though. I love it. Sure, you have to clean it. Also remember that the dust cover is there for a purpose.

Bottom line is, people either love or hate the M16. There is no middle road.

       Where have you been? I can't believe it took so long for the opposing view.

Reply #10

From: WILLIAM HAVERKORN (whaverkorn@msn.com)
Date: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:37 PM

In theory your Idea is correct. The m16a2 is a marginal weapon. The part that you are not thinking about is having the contracts go to russia. The majority of russian bussiness's are either run by or in colusion with russian mob. Especialy the russian military and there suppliers. That makes sense, lets give the russian mob billions of dollars more.

The best thing to do is develop a new weapon system here,or use some of the oustanding new designs that the Isrealis have been producing. The (forgive my spelling) Galille is a hybrid version of a number of weapons that is more than adaquate to fill the roll of the M16 frame. The A2 is also falling out of favor with the army anyways. The combat enviroment of the current gobal climate dictates a weapon that is more manuverable.

The M4 system more than adequatley replaces the M16 in the CQB role. As far as medium to long range engagments there are many other larger caliber weapons that fill the roll. Yes even better than your beloved AK-74 (Spetznaz).

I think that before you go on a rant you should maybe research the facts a bit. The Ak74 is not the end all be all weapon system. It is not even close.

        I never said the Ak74 was the end all be all weapon system. What I did say was it was the best assault weapon in production today, which is very true. It may not be the most accurate or have the highest muzzle velocity, but it is the most reliable weapon bar none, which is by far the most important thing to a soldier.
        There are problems beyond egos with an arms deal with Russia, of course. You said that in theory, my idea was correct. Well no shit, it was theoretical. The Russians would NEVER sell us the AK74 anyway.
        And by the way, I do research my facts. Let's take a look at the American assault weapon of the future, the XM8, due to be in full production by 2005. It is by far the most advanced assault weapon ever, but it is also the most complicated. I can't see this thing as being reliable at all. I hope I’m wrong.

Reply #11

From: Russ & Laura ()
Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 3:38 AM

     I loved the site, the BK guy made me laugh so hard I peed a little, I posted it on a forum I frequent and got an amazing response. Your site, though not at all anything like I expected, is well put, and an amazing way to use any media to convey your views. I will be sure to check in from time to time to see what you've got going.
     That having been said, I will give you a little background, just incase you're wondering who the dude blathering on is. I am a member of the US military, the Marines, to be exact, and have been since November of 1997, I was seventeen then, and have grown up a bit over the years, learning most of life's more difficult lessons about 'choices' the hard way. I have yet to choose a political party, but, if you have ever heard anyone say that military members aren't politically influenced by thier occupation, you were lied to. Although I will tell you that I don't really hold a political party close to heart, and my political views do seem to range from left to right daily, so I try to read the newspaper every day, and watch CNN as little as possible. I believe that openmindedness, and a wary eye for all 'unbiased' media is a responsibility of anyone who dares express an opinion as an american citizen.
     Now, as far as this being a reply to your M16A2 rant. I started my career with someone handing me a rifle... Yes, it was an M16, but did I get an old, worn-out relic? Nope. I got a brand-spanking-new M16A2 service rifle. Sure the A2 had been out for awhile, but I got one that was still coated in packing grease. Called a 'service rifle' because it was the single infantry weapon that was universally issued to all 4 branches of the armed forces. It is a clip-fed, gas-operated, shoulder fired rifle. Fired using a locking-bolt design, and capable of both semi-automatic, and three-round burst fire. I still remember the serial number, but I don't think that's relivant here. Now, you said that we're using a weapon that has reliability problems... I disagree, but not for the reasons I am sure you're expecting.
     In the Vietnam war, the first troops issued the 'Stoner' M-16 were 'screwed' as they had just been handed a weapon that's primary design and testing had been done indoors, and whose original manufacturing specs weren't followed to the letter. First of all, that indoor testing didn't require any 'wiggle room' (of which the Kalishnikov rifles had been given plenty.) to be designed into the weapon, that would allow dirt, carbon film, and excessive corrosion to fall into. Second of all, the chrome-plated chamber, designed into Mr. Stoner's original prototype had been taken out, replaced by stamped steel. (Not even stainless.) This allowed even a little bit of water to cause the chamber to rust, and in turn, this caused the bolt; which locks onto the chamber, to stick fast. So, as soon as the first round was chambered; and as this is a gas-operated weapon, once it was fired, the bolt wouldn't be pushed with enough force to free it. After the first couple thousand were issued, they WERE recalled, and the problem was corrected. Not that other problems didn't exsist. I can list those too, and I will, just so you can help me if I miss a correction somewhere.

• 1. Chrome-plated chamber
• 2. Locking-bolt/bolt carrier assembly built too close together. (The Gas would have no expansion space, and if the bolt didn't move correctly, it would bend/warp.)
• 3. Round casings would eject into left handed users' face.
• 4. Troops didn't have to clean thier old weapons much (M14, M14A2, M1A2, M3) so the new ones got neglected too... they weren't cleaned often enough. This isn't so much of a problem anymore, as you'll see guys cleaning thier rifles once a month, even if that's the only time they ever see it. When we do carry them, they're cleaned every time we stop moving.
• 5. Ammo wasn't NATO spec. This meant if it didn't come from the USA, it would damage the rifle. NATO rounds were made for rifling with a seven-in-one twist, the M16, for super-accurate fire, was designed with a twelve-in-one twist, sure, that meant more poweder in the casing, but, we're Americans, more is better, right?
• 6. Flash supressor was a 3 pronged fork, perfect for jabbing into C-Ration cans. Jab, twist, and POP, open sez a me. (This abuse, combined with a hella-thin barrel caused warping along the barrel's length, which screwed up the rifling INSIDE the barrel, which caused the round to wobble, spin, or come apart upon discharge from the muzzle. Sometimes, the warping would be so bad the weapon would literally blow up, right in the unfortunate user's face.)
• 7. Adjustable sights weren't so easily adjustable, they required the soldier to use an un-expended round to poke at the rear sight knob to get it to turn, just to adjust the windage (Left and right sighting adjustments.)

• 1. We're still firing US-Made rounds almost exclusively, NATO 5.56mm (A selling point for the M16 in the first place, BTW) is still firable, but drastically shortens the life-span of the barrell, it didn't move fast enough, and ate away the rifling much faster than the US-made ammo.
• 2. We still wasted alot of ammo, the automatic fire option is still there... lets use that.
• 3. That nifty new bolt didn't always lock into the chamber, so we are wasting a lot of bullets and time cycling the bolt by 'racking' the charging handle to re-seat the bolt.
• 4. Round casings were getting caught in the ejection port, occasionally moving directly backwards due to the stonger ejector spring.
• 5. Those sight-adjustments are still a pain-in-the-ass.
• 6. The barrel is too light, and climbs alot when fired in burst, or auto.

Keep up the awesome webpage, feel free to reply, or use this on your website.
-Russ.

       What a cool reply! A bit long, but it's obvious ya know your shit! Thanks...

Reply #12

From: "Steve Moskal" (Steve.Moskal@averydennison.com)
Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 3:44 AM

        After having served in the Marines, and actually having experience firing both weapons (M16A2 and AK-74), I would just like to point out that both weapons have some good points, as well as some shortcomings. The M16A2 is not as complicated as some people would believe. In fact, it can be completely broken down in under 2 minutes (a requirement for all Marine Corps recruits in basic training), and with a little time to familiarize yourself with the weapon, you can break it down and reassemble it in less than 2 mins. As far as the AK being less complex, I'll give you that. That's actually the primary reason there are so many in the world. It's not that they are excellent weapons, it's that they are simple/cheap to manufacture, and as a result, simple to reverse engineer. A majority of what is actually closer to 90 million AK-styled weapons in the world today were not manufactured in Russia, but other countries producing "knock-offs".
        I digress. Is the AK more reliable and maintenance free than the M16? If you mean does it jam less and require less cleaning, yes. Would I count on it in a fight when my life depended on it? Not hardly. The M16 is infinitely more accurate, and has better penetration and stopping power characteristics. I'd rather take one or two shots at something/one, and know they weren't very likely to move again when hit, than take 10 shots with an AK in order to hit the target and feel the same level of confidence (not to mention wasting precious ammunition). Like I said, there are trade-offs, and combat troops understand that.
        Does a soldier in the field want as simple a weapon as possible? That almost goes without saying. Do all our servicemen and women get training to at least familiarize themselves with the M16? Yes (even the Air Force), because our military is not conscripted "peasants" (for lack of a better term), like the former Soviet Union's. (Our troops receive the best basic training in the world.) Do combat troops want a weapon that's reliable in field conditions, is accurate, lightweight, has a high magazine capacity, are modular/adaptable for different combat situations, can easily mount secondary weapon systems, and is chambered in a caliber that offers good penetration and stopping power? Obviously. Do the M16A2 or AKs fill all those categories? Simply put, no. There are weapons system available today that are much better in all these categories. One such weapon that comes readily to mind is the H&K G36. H&K is also working with the US military on the development of the XM8, the potential replacement for the M16. The DoD has finally reached te conclusion that many of us came to years ago, that it's time to replace the M16 with a more modern weapon. Now let's see if they put their money where their PR campaign says they will.
        The M16A2 is a good weapon, with a proven design. So is the AK-74. If I went into combat, which rifle would I want to carry? If options were limited to these two, I'd have to pick the M16, but I'd really rather carry an M-14. Reliable, accurate, and more range and stopping power than both the M16 or AK.

        I am certainly in no position to refute your expertise, not to mention that reply kicked ass and figuritively bitched slapped me in a very polite and informative way.

Reply #13

From: "Roberta Fair" (roberta.fair@derkinandwise.com)
Date: Monday, March 01, 2004 4:46 PM

        I Agree with your Diagnosis on The AK74 and The AK47 as being much more reliable to use but to call the M16 an unreliable albeit accurate weapon is not a very informed opinion. The AK models were designed to be able to be buried in a muddy field left for a year then unburied and soaked in salt water for a year and the be left out in the elements for a year and then hosed off and be called fit for service. The reason it is like this is because the design is very open and anything can get in and out. What on an M16 would be very tight together on the AKs it is very open. The same amount of dirt that would make an AK run a little choppy would jam an M16. The solution to this is a weekly cleaning of the M16. The ability to be careless with ones weapon is not good Army discipline standards at work. The design of the AK reflects an ability to field a weapon that was suited to its users. The Russian army was full of people who didnt want to fight for there country and couldnt care less about cleaning there weapons. The US army is comprised mostly of people who want to be there; there are those who dont want to be there but they were apparently willing enough when they signed away ther soul on the dotted line. These are people who want to be the best and being the best is constantly drilled into them.
        If you want to bring up many of the weapons in Jessica Lynch's units jamming when placed in a fire fight, the reason they jamed is because these were the people who wanted to serve in the military but didnt want to be a warrior. They were cooks who knew how to field strip and clean there weapons but chose not ot due to their job. Jessica did not deserve a metal for her service, rather her Cap. who sent them into an area that he was told was not secure should be court marshalled. He knowingly sent them into an area that was not a vital supply route and was not worth the effort required to secure it. He was informed that the area was not secure and was told to avoid it with a 30 mile radius by the 82nd Airborne. Sorry i just got off onto a personal rant about that due to the M16 coming up In short the M16 is very accurate and reliable (when given proper procedural cleaning once a week 10 mins to up to 2 hrs depending on thourougness required. It is not a difficult procedure and was something that I a civillian with friends and brothers in the Army mastered.

       I can't think of a smart assed quip, so I will just say thank you for your reply.

Reply #14

From: "Tammy Brown" (HTTBrown@yadtel.net)
Date: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 9:18 PM

I have to agree,but the M-16 looks better.

       That was funny.

Reply #15

From: Anonymous
Date: Thursday, May 27, 2004 11:25 AM

Hey asshole i am in the millitary and the m16 family of rifles is the best out there. the new a3 and a4 and the m4 carbine top the ak74. theyre easier to strip and they are smaller calliber too which means you can carry more rounds. it is true that the m16a1 jammed up alot, but the not the a2, i have never had a problem wiht my rifle jamming and i am infantry so i should know. only when i drag it in the sand. by the way what are the reasons the a2 isnt dependable. you never mentioned one. get the facts and post some stats. and then youll realize

       I am still amazed at how some people only process half of what they read...

Reply #16

From: "Tom" (cardSharkTom@aol.com)
Date: Saturday, May 29, 2004 2:13 PM

Damn right! you are dead on with that rant. The AK-74 is a much better weapon than the M-16. The M-16 shoud be replaced soon, before more of our guys die n Iraq. Keep on ranting Brother

       It is being replaced... with the XM8 series, the super-DUPER toy.

Reply #17

From: "daphne" (expensivewino13@yahoo.com)
Date: Saturday, June 19, 2004 5:37 AM

Well, it's not about the M16, but it's about the OTHER piece of shit Army issue.
The Combat Boot.
I have been to Podiatry a couple of times when I broke a toe and then had a bump develope on my foot, and the amount of poor grunts I see with arch problems is so sad.
Look, if you're going to roadmarch for 10 miles, you should be able to expect a boot that has the support of a good quality hiking or running shoe. Period.
Combat boots come in all types of styles. I like them. Actually, I think they're dead sexy, honest. But, I think if this Army can develope a missile that can track and hit another missile, and it can make a picture from outer space of my back yard with great detail, it should be able to design a combat boot that has exceedingly better foot support than what is already out there.
I've met many tankers that have feet problems from just jumping down every day for years. I don't understand why this hasn't been addressed.

That's all I have to add to this. Hope you print it.

       Anyone else like to talk about... oh, I dunno... Army underware or something?

Reply #18

From: Pfc. P
Date: Saturday, June 26, 2004 8:54 PM

Theres alot of myths concerning this weapon...
Alot.

I've been in Iraq for about 7 months now. 1-5 Cav Mech. Inf. 1CD. I've been in fire fights and my weapon has jammed and I'd be lying if I told you that I didn't almost shit my pants. Over here we've got ICDC. The Iraqi forces that we're training. They go out with us and most of them are actually decent guys with alot of stories. You wouldn't believe some of them . We've got m16A4's and M4's and they've got Ak's. Their weapons are by NO means new. Neither are our's for that manner but thats besides the point. If I treated my rifle the way I've seen Ak's being treated, I'd be better off throwing rocks. You can coat an Ak in rust and that bitch would still fire. Well not "coat" but you get my meaning. BTW I don't appreciate how some people say Service members don't like the Ak. Period. You can't group all of us together like that. Different people have different opinions. Me personally. I've been trained on my M16. I've fired an Ak about 6 times. You tell me which one I'm more comfortable carrying with me. Now if I had been trained with both weapons I don't think I could really tell you my preference. But when your riding in the back of a Humvee and your convoy gets ambushed, I'd appreciate if my weapon wouldn't jam.. All M16's are different it seems. Firing my weapon feels much different from firing my battle buddy's. Different rifles have differenty reliability levels. My rifle in basic NEVER jammed. No matter what I did to it. I can't say that about my current weapon, but I never fired my BCT rifle in Iraq either so.. I dunno man. The 16 is more accurate hands down. But an Ak is gunna shoot everytime. Hands down.
Lots of hands.

       I guess if I had three or so guys with me and they all had A4s as well, I guess we’d have the advantage, right? That is if everything else was equal of course.

Reply #19

From: Lee (ghost_point@hotmail.com)
Date: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 1:08 PM

I don't know what kind of combat those marines been in but every vet I,ve talked to had multiple storys of throwing there jammed up rifle down and ducking for cover (being droped into rainy swamps on ambush in veitnam is the best testing conditions I can think of). Also I've come across storys of soldiers shooting multiple times and hitting an enemy that didn't flintch and kept shooting back. If I read the labels on my any of my armour it says clearly that It can help against .223 but a 7.62x39 will come out your back! I will never waste money on a .223 and I shoot little plastic army men with 7.62x39. No wonder I'm getting storys of soldiers in Iraq picking up AKs because the .223 sucks unless your shooting already wounded unarmoured Iraqis. Also remember the battle in Los Angeles? Wasn't the cops gettin shot through cars while the robbers had multiple hits bounce right off? and as far as accuracy most infantry men I know didn't fight from max ranges. The Ak that ! I shot was more than accurate enough. I've never had a shoot out with marines but the ones I've had deffinetly were close enough to get hits with any firearm if it would even fire. So to the marines or any one that says any .223 rifle is a good combat weapon lets take it to the bush were your bullets will deviate from leaves. I'll just bring an old shotgun or lever 30.30 and tap you on your shoulder before I disarm you. Ak47 - power is performance period

       Dude, I’m not really a gun enthusiast at all, and even I know yer numbers are really fucked up…

Reply #20

From: "Brett" (starnesb@marietta.edu)
Date: Saturday, August 28, 2004 1:38 AM

Have you ever shot either of these weapons? Can you cite any sources for you cause? Let the choice of weapons stay in the hands of those that are actually using them. I have used the M16 and the AR15 both in the military and for hunting and have never had a malfunction. Cleaning your weapon is all you have to do to make sure that it will work. If you are too lazy to do that then you deserve to have it jam on you when you need it most.

       Yes I have actually, but I’m no expert. That’s why I usually dig opposing viewpoints when they really have something useful to say.

Reply #21

From: "Richard" (autarch@cox.net)
Date: Saturday, September 18, 2004 1:33 AM

I was reading your article on the M16 and the replies you got to it and while I agree with your general thrust, there is one thing I'd like to make a little comment on. In reply to a reply you said: "Let's take a look at the American assault weapon of the future, the XM8, due to be in full production by 2005. It is by far the most advanced assault weapon ever, but it is also the most complicated. I can't see this thing as being reliable at all." It is essentially an HK-G36 and although it is an advanced weapon, the FN 2000 with its computer programmable firing rate and automatic grenade launcher is definitly a few steps ahead. A couple of other rifles are also more advanced than the XM-8, but in general terms the XM-8 is a 'next generation' weapon. In regards to the reliability, G36s are very, very reliable (something like 6,000 rounds without a misfire) and tough. The issue is one of complexity: it may never break but, when it does, you're fucked. There is simply no way an infantryman can take a messed up XM8, G36 or P90 and repair it with field tools, the construction facts (such as solid polymer frames) make it basically impossible. So I would say the XM8 will probably be reliable as weapons go, but when something goes wrong you wont be able to just smack it or jimmy the reciever with your knife like you would with a Kalashnikov.

       That was sort of the gist of my point. I’ll take your word on the “6000 rounds without a misfire” stat, and I will agree that it’s impressive, but that’s not a figure from a field test, is it? Unfortunately, the Middle East proving ground will be open for the first ones…

Reply #22

From: Anonymous
Date: Saturday, September 25, 2004 8:57 PM

Hi, I'm just here to throw in my 10 cents. Even though the m16 may have some problems with the direct gas operating system, I think it is the best all around assualt rifle for a soldier to carry. It's ammuniton may be less powerful than 7.62( 5.56 is actually more powerful when it fragments on impact with the target). The current version, the m16a2, is accurate actually to 800 meters. Now I've read "The saga of the m-16" and other vietnam m16 horror stories, but that was during the very first fielding. In fact, the most problems occured of course when it still carried the experimental "XM16E1" designation. Stories about XM16 rounds not penetrating paper at 500 meters scared me, but the a2 really has no range problems today. It's just the damn sensitive mechanism so many of you talk about. The M-16 is just not the most reliable weapon available. On a side note the new xm8 rifle will use a piston, so that no carbon fouling of the chamber can occur. Cool.

       We'll kill 'em at record speed!

Reply #23

From: Marine
Date: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 1:51 PM

yes the m16 had alot of flaws but most of these flaws have been fixed and about the ak47 and the ak74 usaly after the first shot ur just wasting ammo and have u looked and the m4 its a very good wepon i am curently issued this wepon and i am very proud of this wepon and happy with it

       Very good... got it. Is it the best though? Some have said it is, and point towards evidence of mathematics and personal use to back their point of view. Yet others have said the opposite, and use evidence of mathematics and personal use to back their point of view as well. Is the bottom line preference though?

Reply #24

From: "John" (vinnieralph@aol.com)
Date: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 1:56 PM

I do whole-heartedly agree with you on the M16A2.I have shot a M16, and I own an AK47. I agree that the AK74 is a superior weapon compared to the M16A2.I even feel the AK47 is superior to the M16. It's harder hitting,more reliable,easier to field strip,ammo less expensive ect.

       But is the 12mf with the RF the same as the fifteen two zero four? Or can the 10dy do the same job as... as... wait, what the fuck am I taking about?