Never had any stoppages with my basic training issued M16A2, but then it was new or nearly new when I had it.  Weapons that have been used by a bunch of recruits are going to be worn like any other weapon (if not more so).

 

>>How am I supposed to butt stroke an enemy in the face if a butt stock is going to fall off????????<<

 

You should not ever do so.  That's why you muzzle strike.  Jamming the end of the barrel into someone's skull with all the force you can generate with both arms can and will incapacitate or even kill.

 

I was taught the same WW2 vintage set of bayonet drill moves when I joined, and all I can say is it was obviously a non-priority since no one had bothered to consider how any of those movements would actually work with a weapon that did not have a full wood stock.  Buttstroking is a pretty bad idea in general on any weapon that does not have a full wood stock (including the AK) though some are better bets than others (i.e. an AK will still fire after you break the butt off, an AR and various other designs will not).

 

>>Although I have never yet had the chance to fire an AK 47, I always felt that the charecteristics of that weapon would better suit me than an M16 which would die under my rough use or abuse.<<

 

I've rarely seen an M16 or M4 fail when properly maintained (I don't mean some guy ran a cleaning rod through it, I mean routine depot maintenance and such).  The only weapons I've seen fail were those which had been improperly headspaced when new bolts and/or barrels were installed.

Well, due to my size and height, I seem to be able to generate a greater impact with a mighty swing. And butt stroking is one of those moves that are to be non lethal. For lethality, I was taught to shoulder the weapon and fall on it to impale anyone prone on the ground. A couple of these with the bayonet might have weakened the butt.

There's no need to do anything but the operator level maintenance you can do with the basic cleaning kit (well, +/- some dental picks, perhaps) as long as the M16/M4 in question is in basically good mechanical condition.  They do wear out and sometimes require depot level rebuilds, but this is usually (if done correctly) sufficient to breath new life even very high round count rifles.

 

Sometimes it isn't.  If it isn't, those weapons should be pulled, retired, whatever, though I can see this not happening, especially with weapons assigned to training units and such.

 

As for butt stroking versus muzzle striking -- even with an M16 (and even more so with an M4) this movement should simply never be taught.  Bending or breaking off the butt and the recoil buffer therein turns the weapon into a paperweight.  Muzzle striking (especially if you've got a forward handgrip) accomplishes the same thing, but hits the target with the strongest portion of the weapon from the best direction of impact in terms of keeping it shooting.  I've seen guys use muzzle strikes as part of a mechanical breach on a cinder block wall -- it puts a lot of force onto whatever you are hitting, and the gun keeps running.

 

(Butt stroking is generally a bad idea, in my opinion, with any weapon that does not have a single piece stock like an M14, M1 Garand, and all those other old classics.  I would not do it with an AK either, though as I think I mentioned, the AK will keep shooting if you break off the butt stock.  For a modern service rifle that may be used with or without body armor, I'd rather have the ability to adjust length of pull rather than deliver a solid thump with a butt stroke in any case . . .)

 

On the AK . . . on a one for one basis, it is an inferior weapon compared to the AR-15 family.  Th AK just is not a gunfighter's weapon.  It will definitely kill folks dead as cancer -- and has done so to millions -- but the ergonomics are very poor for running the weapon and using it at typical combat ranges (i.e. try timing mag changes with an AR versus an AK).  The 7.62x39mm round delivers a decent degree of thump (and consequent recoil) but the AK itself is a pretty poor platform to launch them from.  It does have its strengths (rugged, etc.) but they're not enough to offset the liabilities, at least to my way of thinking.  With my issue M4A1 I'm pretty confident that I'm much better armed than an opponent with an AKM.

Does anyone here have any experience with the AR-18, or know why it never caught on?

Ok Horsesoldier, I get your drift, I know the AK shoots badly, I might be able to accept the recoil, and I have to see the down grade in accuracy personally to see if its acceptable. Besides I tend to be quite a rough and tumble person with my equipment (espeacially when I am fumbling and in a hurry!), somehow this may be better then an evil black rifle that is too senstitive huge slaps and chops while loading and the ocassional thumping.

However I have noticed besides the new AR 180, there is the Olymic Arms OA-93-CAR 16" Rifle
Do"" target="_blank">link target=_blank href_cetemp=" link" target="_blank">link u have any comments on how this rifle stacks up against the M16 in reliability and accuracy.

Appreciate you comments.

I'm not familiar with the OA-93.  Looks kind of fragile, but on of my AR-15s I own I have a (standard) Olympic Arms upper receiver and it works fine, quality seems okay, etc. so it may more solid than it looks in the pictures.

Is the OA-93 a gas piston operating system, or just direct gas with the buffer tube assembly replaced with an alternative?

Well I do sought of know why but can't confirm it. (so do post comments)

1) The weapon was made by a genius that did not realize its potential, and it was treated more like an also ran step child by the developers, rather than a replacement for the M16. Like it was done as an after thought to bypass a patent. The design could still be improved upon.

2) The weapon also looked too radical (even more so than the M16) for those traditional rifle must be made of wood stock generals to accept the beauty of the evil black rifle look. But I do.

3) Accuracy (compared to the M16), that is what I am trying to find out of , no shooting experience, but there were some that told me to be greatful for having an M16, as it is easier to pass the shooting profeciency test

But in a way the AR 18 has been adopted in asia since time before in the past, in the form of the Japenese Howa rifle, the Korean Daewoo rifle. And almost all the modern 5.56 weapons in use today is a derivative of the AR 18. So sad to say the daddy has been made obsolete by its children.

But I have a further question, does anyone know of any new 5.56 battle rifles that are derived from the M16 direct impingement gas system????

.

I think the AR-18/180 suffered from two problems, one that was not its fault and one that was.

First, the AR-15/M16 was already the big thing going, and it just hit the market at the wrong time and such, kind of like the Stoner modular weapon system the SEALs played around with in Vietnam.  Not really the fault of the 18.

 

Second, however, it was pitched specifically as a weapon that could be made cheaply in the 3rd World more easily and for less money than the AR-15.  This was just a very bad marketing idea, in my opinion, since most 3rd World nations already have a bit of a complex about their status and "here you go, this is a good gun for a poor country like you" just did not play well.  It also did not really fit into how the world arms market was developing -- Colt, FN, HK, etc, had vested interests in getting their products sold, and their products had the added plus of being used by the US, UK, Germans, whoever else, which again played well with 3rd world military generals and politicians and their insecurities. 

None of which is to say that it is a bad weapon, just a victim of bad timing and possibly a flawed basic concept regarding the market niche it would fill.  As noted, the AR-18 operating system has been copied on a number of weapons, not least of which the British L85 and the German G36, so it obviously had some things going for it.

 

As for the direct gas impingement system, I can't think of any non-AR15 designs that use it.  The strength of the direct gas system was that it made the lightest feasible weapon possible with 1960s technology.  It obviously did so at the expense of a relatively dirty action (though this tends to be seriously overstated, at least nowadays -- mileage varied badly back in the mid to late 1960s with the wrong powder used for the ammunition, etc.).  The consensus seems to be, today, that people will accept a somewhat heavier weapon to get a somewhat cleaner action. 

 

I'm personally waiting to try the SCAR-L out before I decide if I agree or not.  I wasn't really impressed with the G-36 when I got to put some rounds through one (not a bad weapon at all, but not much of an improvement over an M4).

Here's something interesting that's sort of related to gas systems and weight.



The Marine Corps fielded the M1941 Johnson Rifle in small numbers
during WWII, mostly with their Parachute and Raider Battalions. 
The Johnson was recoil operated.  That did present some problems,
but some Marines still liked the Johnson.


link target="_blank">link


I wonder if the problems could be overcome today?  Who knows, maybe we can get Gaston Glock to work on it.