m16 rifle
so what is the state of the m16, did they make it reliable? and it has been in service since the viatnam war, is their a plan to come up with a new rifle? the guys in afganistan dont have much good to say about them. I read about it on u tube from the marines joe
0
-
The rifle of Vietnam and the M16/M4 of today are totally different in reliability. They are always looking for new weapons but none will come into play in the next 10 years. Their complaints are probably related to the caliber more so then the rifles themselves. 0 -
the dust and sand play havoc in the M16/AR 15 platforms due to close tolerance were as the AK family with loose tolerance works well in the sand 0 -
And you believe what you read on u tube? The M16/M4 is very reliable. 0 -
The M-16 I had in Vietnam was very reliable, but I got there after the problems with powder and the non-chrome lined bores was worked out. I still use AR platform guns today and they are very reliable as long as they are cleaned and lubricated when needed.
I think the gas piston system on the AR is a great improvement over the gas tube as it keeps heat and powder fouling away from the BC.0 -
The 'Army Times' published a detailed article a couple of years ago about three European 5.56 military rifle designs that the Army (extensively) tested, with an M16 for control. In the various test phases, the M16 jammed more frequently than all three of the other rifles, combined. Apparently, the improved M16 still can't cut it.
Stoner was no John Garand, John Browning, or even a Kijiro Nambu.0 -
I get a real kick out of it when guys say that 'you have to choose- reliability or accuracy.' Funny how the M1 and M14 had both and the M16 only has one.
Look, it's a lot more reliable than it was, but I never see an M1 or M1A jamming on the range, and see various AR-15 and M4 platforms jam almost on a daily basis- on clean, target range conditions. I'd rather have one than an AK, I grant you, but it just seems that we could do better.0 -
Part of the advantage the M14 had over the M16 was 1, the gas system allowed for powder gases to be trapped in greater quantity & while they were still expanding, that expansion cycled a bolt that had about a 60 degree slow extraction to cam loose a tight cartridge. The M16 uses less gas and has an artillery style bolt with only about 20 degrees and virtually no slow extraction; which causes dirt/sand to have much more effect- there is just less margin for proper operation.
While the power has been a problem at longer ranges, the quicker twist and heavier bullets allow a BC and MV to be similar to the 7.62 Nato round, so the trajectory is similar and given the present push toward wounding rather than killing makes the lack of ME at target less of an issue.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Ray B
Part of the advantage the M14 had over the M16 was 1, the gas system allowed for powder gases to be trapped in greater quantity & while they were still expanding, that expansion cycled a bolt that had about a 60 degree slow extraction to cam loose a tight cartridge. The M16 uses less gas and has an artillery style bolt with only about 20 degrees and virtually no slow extraction; which causes dirt/sand to have much more effect- there is just less margin for proper operation.
While the power has been a problem at longer ranges, the quicker twist and heavier bullets allow a BC and MV to be similar to the 7.62 Nato round, so the trajectory is similar and given the present push toward wounding rather than killing makes the lack of ME at target less of an issue.
There's no way a .223 round at 58, 70, or even 125 grains will ever compete with the 7.62 NATO for delivered energy at 200 yards, much less if shot further than that.
I'd much rather hit an aggressor with 2600ft./lbs using any .308 cartridge than bounce a teensy .22 caliber off their suspenders.0 -
To put it in a nutshell, yes, the M4/M16, has greatly improved its reliability since its introduction. The arguments about the gas impingement versus gas piston are petty, and boils down to a little temperature difference. Give me the original Gas Impingement any day...less parts to play with, and worry about too.
quote:There's no way a .223 round at 58, 70, or even 125 grains will ever compete with the 7.62 NATO for delivered energy at 200 yards, much less if shot further than that.
I'd much rather hit an aggressor with 2600ft./lbs using any .308 cartridge than bounce a teensy .22 caliber off their suspenders.
Lets just forget about energy, and concentrate on terminal performance, which is going to be nil, as long as we stick to the Geneva Convention, and use FMJ type bullets. Yes the 7.62 has more energy, but more importantly it has a bigger Taylor factor, in the current fmj configuration.
Best0 -
Gunnut-
Please read a post completely before you decide what has been said- and I'll give you an opportunity, you pick out any set of suspenders that you like, stand 200 yards downrange and I'll see which .223" bullet bounces off of your suspenders the best.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments