Good riddance M-16

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

shek RE:Good riddance M-16 9/17/2005 1:32:49 PM

The M16A2 was very reliable and accurate. However, the M4 gives you a much more compact weapon with little trade off in accuracy. This would probably be why phasing out the M16 isn't receiving that much attention. As far as not having full auto, I don't see that as a big deal. Well aimed semi-automatic fire provides more suppression than poorly aimed automatic fire, and if you do need an initial burst of automatic fire to try and gain fire superiority, you have that at the team level and above already.

Quote Reply

ChdNorm RE:Good riddance M-16 9/17/2005 2:37:00 PM

I think it's become "cool" to trash the M-16s again. Personally, I am a huge fan of the M-14 rifles. Even they have their weak points though. We just tend to overlook them for the sake of nostalgia. People tend to grab on to the least little flaw (real or perceived) of the M-16s and run it into the ground. What we've got here in 2005 is a very mature and refined weapon that is a solid performer in almost all regards. Whether it be the M-16A2 or the M-4, both provide excellent service. "It's interesting the while the M-14 has its fans even dacades after its retirement, the pending retirement of the M-16 has generated a reaction more like "How soon?" " PPR The M-16 series will not be going anywhere, anytime soon. Even IF replaced in US military service (I've yet to see anything that makes me think it's going to be anytime soon), the huge commercial market that caters to the M-16/AR-15s will be around for years to come. There are far more M-16s running around out there than there are M-14s, and that gap will only continue to widen with the passing of each and every day. "I never much liked it myself. It was high-maintenance and prone to jam at the worst times." PPR I think it's great that a XM-8 (or whatever this weeks current wonder weapon) can go 15,000 rounds without cleaning. I also think it'd be great to see whoever let it go 15,000 be court-martialed for doing it. A soldier has one reason, and one reason only, for existing. That reason is because he carried his rifle onto the battlefield. If that soldier cannot perform the very basic and simple maintenance to keep an M-16 series rifle functioning, he is not worthy of being considered a soldier in the first place. Theres always the Jessica Lynch types out there thrown up when people get to talking about M-16 reliability ... they were the victims of very poor training by the US Army and by not taking responsibility for their own safety by securing the necessary skills required to survive. Something like that goes far and above the topic of the reliability of a single rifle too dirty to operate. I have no idea how many rounds I have put thru AR-15s and M-16s in my lifetime. Going all the way back to the A1 I built when I was 15 from a parts kit and lower receiver bought out of Shotgun News to the Colt H-bar in my safe, and every single one in between, I can honestly say that I have experienced exactly one malfunction. A bad magazine was the culprit. Maybe I have just been blessed with exceptional rifles. Maybe it's because I've always understood that anything mechanical WILL malfunction if not properly taken care of. Either way, I've yet to experience anything remotely similar in reliability with any other weapon. "It was also too long and too heavy. It was the under-achieving prima-donna of assault weapons." PPR I find this to be the weakest argument against the M-16 of all. Too heavy? It weighs considerably less than a Garand, that US Forces carried when they actually walked where they were going. Half as much as a M-249, which would seem unbearable if the M-16A2 is too heavy. If eight pounds is too heavy ... how much should they weigh? Should we make them six pounds and less capable of sustaining real life field use? I've never ever seen an argument made that a 870P with an 18" barrel is too unwieldy for CQB type employment. In fact, it's usually just the opposite. Meanwhile an M-16A2 is considered to huge to be maneuvered on anything but a football field. Maybe the 1/2" distance that makes up the difference of the two is the longest 1/2" in the world. But it's still half a freakin inch! "Plus the current version doesn't come with full auto (unless you know how to modify it). " PPR Since we tend to have the same topics over and over again, I'm just going to start quoting myself to save wear and tear on both of the fingers I type with: "Even when involved in engaging targets at almost contact distance, full auto is/should be rarely used. That is the rhelm of controlled pairs, double taps, and bursts. Very rare is the case that I can see where full auto brings about results any better than any of the above. I see it as a good option to keep on the selector, but one that's rarely needed. " Me link

Quote Reply

fitz RE:Good riddance M-16 9/18/2005 9:14:10 AM

Since the M-4 is essentially a shortened M-16 there is no perception that the M-16 is leaving service. It is still with us, just with a different designation.

Quote Reply

AlbanyRifles RE:Good riddance M-16 9/19/2005 11:17:12 AM

In 20 years, the ONLY time I had an M16 jam on me was when I fired blanks, never with ball or tracer. As ChdNorm says.....maintain it and it will serve you well.

Quote Reply

theBird RE:Good riddance M-16 9/20/2005 8:46:27 PM

I've only gotten a chance to fire the M4 once (with blanks), and I liked it a lot better than the M-16 because of its shorter length, which was good for firing around corners during the exercise and lighter weight, which made it easy to hold one handed while high crawling instead of cradleing it like an m16. Being able to shorten the buttstock was nice as well; it made it feel more more natrual than the full m16 stock.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:Good riddance M-16 9/21/2005 10:21:21 AM

>>It's interesting the while the M-14 has its fans even dacades after its retirement, the pending retirement of the M-16 has generated a reaction more like "How soon?" << I don't think I've heard anyone say "how soon" on the notion that the M16 is being replaced. Not that the M16/M4 seems to be going anywhere anytime in the near future. >>I never much liked it myself. It was high-maintenance and prone to jam at the worst times.<< I've never had any particular problems with mine -- privately owned or issued. I think I've had one stoppage, ever, with live ammunition, and that was with a privately owned DPMS AR-15, not an issue M16A2 or M4. >>It was also too long and too heavy.<< Compared to an *M14*???? >>It was the under-achieving prima-donna of assault weapons. Plus the current version doesn't come with full auto (unless you know how to modify it).<< Full auto is just about worthless on an assault rifle, anyway, same with three round bursts.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Good riddance M-16 9/22/2005 10:57:52 AM

"It was also too long and too heavy." Oh please, how can anyone say an M16 is too heavy?

Quote Reply

PowerPointRanger Responds 9/22/2005 8:05:43 PM

Too heavy/long: When one includes all the gear that a soldier must wear (Kevlar, flak vest, etc...) it adds up, especially when that soldier must wear the gear more or less always. The M4 is essentially the same weapon but 3 pounds lighter and about 6 inches shorter. This allows the weapon to be more easily used in close quarters (an increasingly more common environment in a low-intensity-conflict environment such as we currently face). Add to this the fact that our military is nearly half female, we either need to lighten the load or change the policy with regard to women. (Which do you think will happen?) Reliability: I'm glad to hear that so many of you feel the weapon is reliable when one takes the time to do proper care and maintenance. I'm sure the enemy will happly wait to attack until after you've finished. No Auto: Granted, full auto is not the preferred choice for every occasion. But there are times when it is appropriate, but unavailable. I'd rather have something and not need it than need it and not have it. It's a simple modification. Why not have it? Vs the M-14 I did not intend to compare the M-14 to the M-16 directly so much as loyalty the weapons generated. The M-14 was a fine weapon for it day, but would not be suitable for our present wartime needs for some (if not all) of the same reasons. New weapon The M-8 looks like a step in the right direction. Based on the German M-36, a proven, modern design, it will be lighter, and more versatile.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica Just curious - PowerPointRanger 9/22/2005 8:13:49 PM

Have you ever used this weapon? In combat? And if so which version? I'm only asking because you have some very strong opinions and maybe I missed where you discribed some personal experience.

Quote Reply

shek RE:Just curious - PowerPointRanger 9/22/2005 9:39:23 PM

1. The M16 is not too heavy, although I do prefer the M4. 2. As far as a full auto, can you explain a situation where you needed a fully automatic rifle? Full auto on a rifle will not be as accurate as a rapid succession of well aimed shots. While I yelled at my soldiers that would sit there and ping the iron maiden at 300m with rapid shots in succession because it gave them no training value beyond the first shot, it does prove that well aimed shots are more effective than full auto rifle fire that won't be well aimed after the first round or two. 3. The M14 is serving our squad designated marksmen proudly in both Iraq and Afghanistan. My unit had numerous kills with the weapon. I'm not advocating re-equipping all our riflemen with M14s, but it is still a fine weapon.

Quote Reply

TriggaFingaz Resurrected M14s 9/25/2005 8:15:26 AM

Did those M14s resurrected from storage require a lot of restoration work? After all, most were phased out in 1967-68.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Resurrected M14s 9/25/2005 8:41:19 AM

"As far as a full auto, can you explain a situation where you needed a fully automatic rifle?" How about in clearing buildings, woods, trenches, bunkers and on the final stage of an assault?

Quote Reply

shek RE:Resurrected M14s 9/25/2005 10:37:11 AM

Trigga, The M14s required no maintenance to fire. They were either condition code A (never been used, still in the original packing) or B (used but restored and repackaged like new when they were turned in). However, we added rail systems, which required about 15-30 minutes per rifle. Yimmy, Please provide specific examples where you either used fully automatic rifle fire or wish you had the capability and/or where fully automatic rifle fire provided better suppression against you than well aimed rifle fire. Room clearing - 30 bullets in a few seconds in a confined space where the bullets will either ricochet and injure/kill friendlies in the room or penetrate the room and potentiallyinjure/kill friendlies in the other rooms. In my book, that's bad. A few well aimed shots into your target will eliminate the threat, conserve your ammunition, and reduce any potential fratricide. Woods - What's your target? You either have a target or you don't. Trenches - If you need full auto fire, put your automatic riflemen with a SAW in the lead. Most armies have two per squad, so you have this capability if you need it. Bunkers - See trenches. If you need this capability, send in your automatic riflemen. However, the TOW bunker buster, SMAW, AT-4, MK-19, JDAM, mortar shell, grenade, and/or 7.62mm or .50 call will probably make clearing the bunker a safe event. If it's an underground bunker complex, then you're using MOUT techniques to clear it, and you're back to room clearing. The bottomline is that you have a full auto capability at the fire team level without having to provide a full auto capability for riflemen. Doing so increases the chance of non-aimed fire, will waste ammunition, and provide no more suppressive effect than well-aimed fire.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Resurrected M14s 9/25/2005 11:00:41 AM

Shek, you make good points, but I really do feel the British army approach is better. I have been taught to clear a room, a grenade goes in, then the first two guys go in, one spraying automatic left-right low and one spraying automatic right-left low, then the next two go in and deal with the next room etc. Obviously this is highly ammunition intensive and not suitbale for a tower block, however it is far more likely to kill the enemy then trying to take in where they are and giving aimed shots. As for woods, I don't really see why you need to see a target - surely watching the direction of their tracer, or partial movement through bushes etc is enough to return with a burst covering said bush? In Vietnam, I don't believe the two sides saw each other often. For trenches, you could have your SAW gunner at the front, but then if he dies you don't have a SAW. I have been taught the LSW gunner goes towards the rear of the patrol. "The bottomline is that you have a full auto capability at the fire team level without having to provide a full auto capability for riflemen. Doing so increases the chance of non-aimed fire, will waste ammunition, and provide no more suppressive effect than well-aimed fire." I do not see the above quote to be correct. I agree that rapid fire is more effective at suppressing than automatic - however suppressing is not really the riflemans job anyway. There will be no issue of soldiers using automatic when it is not suitable and wasting ammunition, as they should be properly disciplined and trained in its useage. The part I find most concerning however at not giving a rifleman an automatic rifle, is what exactly does he do in the final stage of the assault? I have been taught, that when you have advanced close enough for the final assault via fire and maneuver, the IC will order for men, say Delta fire team, to charge through the enemy position, normally after a couple of grenades have been thrown in. They do this by loading a fresh mag, bayonet and all that, running through the position emptying their magazine, and reorg 100m's odd past the enemy position. I am no expert where it comes to infantry maneuvers, but I really can not see semi-automatic as being half as capable at such an important time of the attack.

Quote Reply

PowerPointRanger RE:Just curious - PowerPointRanger 9/25/2005 1:18:09 PM

M-16A2 (w/M-203). Perhaps my time in Bosnia influenced my opinion of the M-16. I guess it's probably harder to keep an M-16 functional when exposed to "Bosnia dust" than Iraqi sand. "Bosnia dust" is a mixture of normal dust and unfiltered industrial pollutants--think of sand mixed with tar. No only did it blow into all sorts of nooks & crannies, but it stuck! Not exactly the best environment for a gas-operated weapon. As for situations where full auto would be the right thing: any close quarters, target-rich environment.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

	News As History - July 3, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us