PDA

View Full Version : Your Thoughts M-16



CBS
07-13-08, 05:35 PM
What do you think of the M-16
:evilgrin: :evilgrin:

My personal experience with it in Vietnam was
a simple one. Fire one round and then punch the bore as the Commies fired their AK-47 without stopping. It created many a Marines death and a class-action lawsuit in the 9th Distrcit Court in San Francisco. I can't stand the site of one to this day and now I'm told the Marines in Iraq are using M-14s or anything else they can find. No knock-down power......
really imagine that ? Since April of 1967 when
they were issued out at Dong Ha...wow, we really do support our troops.....with junk!!


What are your thoughts and personal experiences with this weapon ?

SEMPER FI............>Chuck

ENGR1371
07-13-08, 07:22 PM
What do you think of the M-16
:evilgrin: :evilgrin:

My personal experience with it in Vietnam was
a simple one. Fire one round and then punch the bore as the Commies fired their AK-47 without stopping. It created many a Marines death and a class-action lawsuit in the 9th Distrcit Court in San Francisco. I can't stand the site of one to this day and now I'm told the Marines in Iraq are using M-14s or anything else they can find. No knock-down power......
really imagine that ? Since April of 1967 when
they were issued out at Dong Ha...wow, we really do support our troops.....with junk!!


What are your thoughts and personal experiences with this weapon ?

SEMPER FI............>Chuck

Personally, I love it! I should say the M-16A2, the SOB never jammed or misfed.. in Desert Storm, in spite of all the sand! We used to keep a Panty hose / nylon over it to keep the grit out! When we were in Kafji in a FF, it never Jammed, one Mag after another, no problems! I own an AR - 15 to this day, Shoot competition with it! Accurate SOB! I also shoot 75 Grain Hollow points! It makes a differance when the Gov. issues you 55 grain ball that couldn't take a freaking cat out!
Here's a thought to consider, when it comes to the Gov., the lowest bidder wins! As far as the AK - 47's, Junk, not accurate, but deadly if hit with one! In Desert Storm the Royal Marines that were attached to us had 7.62 fully Auto's, an absolutely awesome rifle, accurate, low maint., no problems with them!
Semper Fi!

Pete0331
07-13-08, 07:57 PM
Its a alright weapon, but the military needs to upgrade to a gas piston system and better ammo.
I don't want the Marine Corps to adopt the damn SCAR. It has had no real field testing.

Benny215
07-13-08, 08:05 PM
I've never had a problem with the a2 so I'm guessing they fixed a lot of the issues. Any problem I can remember was from the cheap pos magazines they issue.

CH53MetalMan
07-13-08, 08:05 PM
Engr

Can 77 gr. ammo be fed from the magazine? Or do you sit them on top of an empty magazine and feed them one at a time?
<O:p</O:p
While I can’t comment on the M-16’s performance in the field, under battle conditions, as I’ve been fortunate enough never to have been there, I love the Bushmaster AR-15 and have never had a single problem.

SkilletsUSMC
07-13-08, 08:40 PM
The AR-15(M16) platform is top notch. Almost every jam it encounters is directly related to the magazine.

That being said, all the DOD needs to do is upgrade to 6.8 SPC, and add a short stroke gas system and we will have the greatest service rifle of all time.

SgtThrasher
07-13-08, 08:57 PM
I personally didn't like the M16,nor did I trust that malfunctioning Rifle.It was lite compared to the M14 and the M1 Garand. Some Marines in Vietnam were pro M16,but most were Con.I was neither,I own a M1 Garand and like it very well.:evilgrin:

Nick Valdez
07-13-08, 08:58 PM
The Marine Corps should have kept the M-14. Used it in the Domenican Republic with no problems. To my knowledge no Marine lost his life because of a malfunction of the rifle.

CplKJSpevak
07-13-08, 09:05 PM
Weren't the problems during Vietnam because the weapon was sold as a "Self Cleaning" Weapon, Therefore not being cleaned properly, hence the problems with the jamming issues? This is just info I got on the History Channel.

Big Jim
07-13-08, 10:30 PM
Its a alright weapon, but the military needs to upgrade to a gas piston system and better ammo.
I don't want the Marine Corps to adopt the damn SCAR. It has had no real field testing.

BEING AN ARMORER AND TRAINED ON THIS WEAPON AFTER QUALIFYING WITH THE M16A1...I'D HAVE TO SAY THE A2 WAS AS GOOD AS THEY HAD PROMISED...OF COURSE THERE IS NO PERFECT WEAPON OUT THERE...EXCEPT MAYBE THE AK-47 AND ITS HIGHLY RESILIENT AND REARWARD BLOWBACK SYSTEM.

I WENT THROUGH DESERT STORM ALSO WITH THIS WEAPON AND WAS ALSO AT KHAFJI WITH 2ND RECON...IT NEVER FAILED ME. NOW THE MARINE CORPS AND ITS INFITNITE WISDOM OF ALWYS TRYING TO GO TO THE LOWEST BIDDER, TO SAVE MONEY, EVEN FOR SL-3 GEAR SUCH AS MAGAZINES, DID MAKE THE ETERNAL MISTAKE OF ORDERING MAGAZINES FROM AN UNKNOWN CONTRACTOR THAT WERE A P-O-S!! THATS VERY TRUE...BUT IF THIS WEAPON IS CLEANED AND MAINTAIN AND ZEROED IN PROPERLY...IT DOES HAVE THE POWER TO HIT AND KILL SOMEONE AT 500 YARDS AND A REASONABLE LONG LIFE OF FAITHFUL SERVICE...ITS NOT HARD...

sparkie
07-13-08, 11:26 PM
The A1 bolt assist told you from the start it was a prob,,,,,, A1,,, If it don't work, kick it Modification.
Best cleaning for that piece was to take it into the shower with you, and spray it out with Carbon Tet.
gimmie my 14 back.

Riven37
07-14-08, 01:18 AM
What do you think of the M-16
:evilgrin: :evilgrin:

My personal experience with it in Vietnam was
a simple one. Fire one round and then punch the bore as the Commies fired their AK-47 without stopping. It created many a Marines death and a class-action lawsuit in the 9th Distrcit Court in San Francisco. I can't stand the site of one to this day and now I'm told the Marines in Iraq are using M-14s or anything else they can find. No knock-down power......
really imagine that ? Since April of 1967 when
they were issued out at Dong Ha...wow, we really do support our troops.....with junk!!


What are your thoughts and personal experiences with this weapon ?

SEMPER FI............>Chuck


Jam, jam, jam

RLeon
07-14-08, 02:29 AM
Its a alright weapon, but the military needs to upgrade to a gas piston system and better ammo.
I don't want the Marine Corps to adopt the damn SCAR. It has had no real field testing.

I concur. The AR platform is very versatile, but the gas system is inferior to the gas piston systems used in older weapons like the M-14 ans M1 Garand. Also changing the caliber to at least the to 6.8 like SkilletsUSMC said would be ideal.

I never carried one in service but I own and shoot a civvie version of the M-14(M1A) and I would feel safe toting one in hostile territory...even though it weighs a ton

Props to all the fellas that carried those heavy wood & steel battle rifles.
:marine:

Pete0331
07-14-08, 10:30 AM
I never carried one in service but I own and shoot a civvie version of the M-14(M1A) and I would feel safe toting one in hostile territory...even though it weighs a ton


Would you feel safe clearing a room with one?

jinelson
07-14-08, 11:21 AM
Over the years I have read many thoughts and opinions concerning the M-16 and at this point in time a few trends can be seen. My opinion is the M-16 sucks but I am a Vietnam Vet, it seems that as time has gone on Marines have grown more attached to it. I became attached to the M-14 I was issued at MCRD, ITR and Staging Bn. When I got to the Nam I was issued a M-16A1 and given a small comic book like instruction manual to self train myself. I never could understand why we were issued a bayonet as I was sure that I would break my weapon in two if I were to use it. Lucky for me I was a truck driver and allowed to carry smaller weapons like the M-79 Blooper or M-3A grease gun and I seldom ever took my M-16 off the wind shield wingnut. Something else that comes to mind, we were trained on the 7.62mm and learned that it is the NATO round used by all members and our enemy. So I have always questioned the wisdom of going to the smaller 5.56mm. It seems to me that if the M-16 is so great that our enemies would shed their AK-47's and get their hands on a M-16 instead. Just some random thoughts in a forty plus year discussion.

Jim

Pete0331
07-14-08, 01:06 PM
Over the years I have read many thoughts and opinions concerning the M-16 and at this point in time a few trends can be seen. My opinion is the M-16 sucks but I am a Vietnam Vet, it seems that as time has gone on Marines have grown more attached to it. I became attached to the M-14 I was issued at MCRD, ITR and Staging Bn. When I got to the Nam I was issued a M-16A1 and given a small comic book like instruction manual to self train myself. I never could understand why we were issued a bayonet as I was sure that I would break my weapon in two if I were to use it. Lucky for me I was a truck driver and allowed to carry smaller weapons like the M-79 Blooper or M-3A grease gun and I seldom ever took my M-16 off the wind shield wingnut. Something else that comes to mind, we were trained on the 7.62mm and learned that it is the NATO round used by all members and our enemy. So I have always questioned the wisdom of going to the smaller 5.56mm. It seems to me that if the M-16 is so great that our enemies would shed their AK-47's and get their hands on a M-16 instead. Just some random thoughts in a forty plus year discussion.

Jim

The M-16 is higher maintenance then an AK, it costs more, is less durable, and takes more training to be proficient with it.

Established terrorist organizations such as Hezzbola use both AK's and M-16 variants.

Unless you are wearing body armor, or on high dossages of drugs, a shot to the chest with either weapon will put you down.

Zulu 36
07-14-08, 02:59 PM
(Snip) So I have always questioned the wisdom of going to the smaller 5.56mm. It seems to me that if the M-16 is so great that our enemies would shed their AK-47's and get their hands on a M-16 instead. Just some random thoughts in a forty plus year discussion.

Jim

I am not a 5.56mm fan either, but the AK-47 round may be 7.62mm in diameter, but the bullet is shorter and lighter than the NATO 7.62mm bullet, and so is the cartridge case.

NATO is 7.62mm x 51mm while the Soviet is 7.62 x 39.

The AK-47 round is not very accurate over 300 meters (while the 5.56mm NATO does OK here). Of course the NATO 7.62mm is just warming up at 300 meters (but then, so is the Soviet 7.62mm x 54R).

I have shot a KD course with the AK-47 and it stunk up the joint at 300 and 500 meters. 200-meters was OK. I am very proud of my 500-meter shooting (with M-1, M-14, and M-16), but I was lucky to hit paper with the AK. The same thing happened to guys who were much better shooters than me.

One big advantage the AK-47 has over the M-16: it is much cheaper to make and thus cheaper to sell. The Russians never intended the AK-47 to drive nails. They just wanted something cheap, simple, reliable, and accurate enough at 200-meters or less for masses of quickly-trained conscripts to use.

NATO and the US worried more about accuracy at a distance as they wanted infantrymen to be able to engage the Soviet hordes as close to the forward edge of the battle area as possible (300-meters plus). The Soviets just didn't care about long-range shooting as they hoped to convey troops to within 200-meters in APCs.

FistFu68
07-14-08, 03:18 PM
:evilgrin: I'D LIKE TOO TRY SUM OF THOSE 75GRAIN HOLLOW POINTS,YOU WERE TALKIN.PLUS I SAW A'LOT OF DEADER THAN FRIED CHICKEN GOOK'S,THAT HAD BEEN SHOT TOO DEATH BY MY UNIT IN THE 'NAM WE WERE HUMPING THE M-16!!! :usmc: :iwo:

AL49BGN
07-14-08, 03:32 PM
Becoming a Marine in 1986 I can only speak of the A2 I was never issued an A1,however the A2 was a hell of a weapon and more accurate then the AK-47 varience I came across in the Gulf War.I believe the new Kalishnikovs have gone to a smaller caliber then the 7.62x39mm.Their designers want to have the same benefits of the smaller 5.56mm.

Quinbo
07-14-08, 05:27 PM
I went to boot camp with an A-1. We had one in our platoon that you could tap the muzzle gently on the deck a couple of times and the two retaining pins would come out, shake the upper reciever and the bolt carrier and charging handle would fall out. It had been cleaned so often, vigorously and thoroughly by so many different recruits over the years that it was a complete rattle trap.

Hit ITS and was issued an brand new A-2. That one inch difference in length royally trashed our drill. Arrival in the fleet found me again carrying an A-1 and then a saw. All the brand new boots carried saws because we were the only ones that knew anything about them. By early 86 all the A-1's were gone (at least from 3rd Marines). I kind of missed being able to flip the selector to full auto on live fire ranges, but all the improvements were worth the trade.

As others have said the majority of malfunctions were caused by crappy magazines. The only other problems I ever saw were caused by firing blanks. We don't fire blanks at the enemy ;)

Pete0331
07-14-08, 05:39 PM
.I believe the new Kalishnikovs have gone to a smaller caliber then the 7.62x39mm.Their designers want to have the same benefits of the smaller 5.56mm.

The AK-74 is in 5.45x39.
There is also a former eastern block country that produces an AK variant in 5.56. I don't recall what the name of it is.



By early 86 all the A-1's were gone (at least from 3rd Marines). I kind of missed being able to flip the selector to full auto on live fire ranges, but all the improvements were worth the trade.


I remember seeing a photo of a FAST team in the Horn of Africa that still had A-1's in 2003.

Quinbo
07-14-08, 06:38 PM
Pete,
I knew somebody that knew somebody in Hawaii and had the oppurtunity to fire across the Army's requal course in 90. I did it just for the chance to shoot the A-1 again. At that time 3rd Marines hadn't had one in their armory for a while, but the Army still had plenty.

sparkie
07-14-08, 07:33 PM
I hump my own 7.62. Love the thing, Call her Flousie. British Enfield 308, made for the Indian Army, Long,long ago. Bolt action and full wooden clad. Originally metal parts painted black for economy, but now sports a dark green.
I fell in love with 7.62 loooooong ago. Don't sell me a 5.56. I ain't buyin. Hit any brush with a 5.56, and the round will migrate to Florida.

SlingerDun
07-14-08, 08:28 PM
I went to boot camp with an A-1. We had one in our platoon that you could tap the muzzle gently on the deck a couple of times and the two retaining pins would come out, shake the upper reciever and the bolt carrier and charging handle would fall outOMG i think that was mine! Was it shiney? For final drill Had to M-Nu black the forward assist, flash supressor and the ejection port cover or it flashed like a bunch of silver conchos. Can't remember the serial# but was a 1/4 of one of the handguards chipped at the bottom with a loose spring that caused it to fall off when trying to drill with snap and pop? I could raise my knee and tap the stock, push out the retaining pins at the same time for a quick breakdown. Man it were a sloppy weapon. I think FIST may have humped it in country before it became my first issuehttp://www.leatherneck.com/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

Pete0331
07-14-08, 08:41 PM
OMG i think that was mine! Was it shiney? For final drill Had to M-Nu black the forward assist, flash supressor and the ejection port cover or it flashed like a bunch of silver conchos. Can't remember the serial# but was a 1/4 of one of the handguards chipped at the bottom with a loose spring that caused it to fall off when trying to drill with snap and pop? I could raise my knee and tap the stock, push out the retaining pins at the same time for a quick breakdown. Man it were a sloppy weapon. I think FIST may have humped it in country before it became my first issuehttp://www.leatherneck.com/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

Yeah, before the A4 the A-2's the grunts had were really bad.
The upper receiver was very shaky when mated to the lower.
None of the SNCO's could understand why the shot groups were so large at the BZO range. It was always operator error, or that you rested the magazine on the ground. (Which won't effect your shot groups)

Zulu 36
07-14-08, 08:55 PM
One thing I remember from boot camp; we had M-14s, but turned our drill weapons in before we went to Edson Range, where we were issued different M-14s to shoot with. Our DIs told us that the drill weapons were too worn to be good shooters anymore. I thought mine looked OK, but what did I know then.

I don't know if they still do this at boot camp.

Another good thing about even worn-out M-14s was they did not fall apart during drill.

RLeon
07-15-08, 02:09 PM
Would you feel safe clearing a room with one?

Yes.

http://www.ustacticalsupply.com/ProductImages/vltor/vm14socomseriesmodstock.JPG

:)

thewookie
07-15-08, 02:22 PM
Yes.

http://www.ustacticalsupply.com/ProductImages/vltor/vm14socomseriesmodstock.JPG

:)

That is not fair, and that is a nasty peice of machinery right there.

It goes to show you that any good weapon can be modified to fit the mission.

Makes me drool a little...

Alpha1Devildog
07-15-08, 02:29 PM
Had one jam on me just before dawn on a four man mission off Hill 55 in Vietnam, when I got back to the hill I took a look at what was available, seeing I was a pretty good size guy, they asked if I'd want to hump a BAR. I did, and the 16 was history as far as I was concerned. Really wanted a 14, but we already had two in the platoon.

I guess the M16 is a better weapon now than it was when I was there.

Petz
07-15-08, 03:01 PM
What do you think of the M-16
:evilgrin: :evilgrin:

My personal experience with it in Vietnam was
a simple one. Fire one round and then punch the bore as the Commies fired their AK-47 without stopping. It created many a Marines death and a class-action lawsuit in the 9th Distrcit Court in San Francisco. I can't stand the site of one to this day and now I'm told the Marines in Iraq are using M-14s or anything else they can find. No knock-down power......
really imagine that ? Since April of 1967 when
they were issued out at Dong Ha...wow, we really do support our troops.....with junk!!


What are your thoughts and personal experiences with this weapon ?

SEMPER FI............>Chuck

I've noticed that a lot of people on this site are comparing the old with the new and not realizing that not only are the environs and political situations different but the technology as well. The M-16 was crap because they didn't plan ahead and there was no oversight on the development of that weapon, since then too many people who have gone through the same thing as you have risen to the ranks of general and are forcing a "always move forward" approach to military weapons.

All the weapons the troops are getting their hands on are for specialized use, or they are in the army and think they know what will work better for them... I hate the army.... so when you hear about Marines getting different weapons, remember that they are searching for a better weapon for the job they are expected to do. One example is EOD, they use the .50 cal to blow up mines, now they want the M-14 with scope to more easily take care of it. It's lighter and easier to move when under fire, it's really that simple.

I respect your opinion about crap weapons, I feel the same way about a 9mm handgun but at the same time, field striping that 9 is easier than the .45 because you can do it in the dark, blindfolded with no tools and can slide it back together in a matter of seconds... those reasons make it a better weapon. Semper Fi and keep the great topics coming!!!!

thewookie
07-15-08, 03:20 PM
I've noticed that a lot of people on this site are comparing the old with the new and not realizing that not only are the environs and political situations different but the technology as well. The M-16 was crap because they didn't plan ahead and there was no oversight on the development of that weapon, since then too many people who have gone through the same thing as you have risen to the ranks of general and are forcing a "always move forward" approach to military weapons.

All the weapons the troops are getting their hands on are for specialized use, or they are in the army and think they know what will work better for them... I hate the army.... so when you hear about Marines getting different weapons, remember that they are searching for a better weapon for the job they are expected to do. One example is EOD, they use the .50 cal to blow up mines, now they want the M-14 with scope to more easily take care of it. It's lighter and easier to move when under fire, it's really that simple.

I respect your opinion about crap weapons, I feel the same way about a 9mm handgun but at the same time, field striping that 9 is easier than the .45 because you can do it in the dark, blindfolded with no tools and can slide it back together in a matter of seconds... those reasons make it a better weapon. Semper Fi and keep the great topics coming!!!!

Right on SSgt., you can't compare.

Like PI or Thailand

Very few people liked the A-1's when they came out, and for very good reasons. I had to practically beg Gunny Hathcock to sign my AR-15. But what evolved out of that basic system is pretty darn good, if not one of the best weapon system platforms in the world (pound for pound.)

RLeon
07-15-08, 03:44 PM
That is not fair, and that is a nasty peice of machinery right there.

It goes to show you that any good weapon can be modified to fit the mission.

Makes me drool a little...

lol, me too.

In all honesty it's not really practical to hump around a full grown M-14. Pete makes a good point about clearing small spaces.

So far a few modified M1A/M-14 have been made that cam accomplish long range and CQB missions; Springfield SOCOM (http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/3000/3013.htm), Smith Enterprise Crazy Horse (http://www.crazyhorserifles.com/firstindex.htm), and various colapsible stocks from McMillan (http://www.mcmfamily.com/mcmillan-rifles-tactical-m1a.php), VLTOR(seen in my previous post), SAGE EBR (http://www.fulton-armory.com/Sage_PreBan_50.jpg)and Troy SOPMOD (http://www.fulton-armory.com/SOPMOD_SASS-Cropped-Adjusted-675.jpg).

Some would consider going back to this platform a step back in weaponry evolution, I don't see anything wrong with equipping the infantry with them.
Of course I'm an M-14 freak so my opinion is clouded.
:p

Pete, what your opinion about changing existing upper receivers with the H&K 416?

FistFu68
07-15-08, 03:58 PM
:evilgrin: YOU GO TOO WAR WITH THE RIFLE OR WEAPON THEY ISSUE YOU,WE ALL HAVE OUR DREAM RIFLE;BUT THE GRUNTS HAVE BEEN KILLING A'LOT OF MF'ERS FOR A VERY LONG TIME W/THE M-16.I WAS LUCKY,I FELT VERY SAFE IN THE BUSH HUMPING MY 12GAUGE @ .45ACP.:evilgrin: :iwo:

Quinbo
07-15-08, 05:16 PM
When I was a Cpl checking into barracks duty I was issued 4 weapons. I was issued the M-16A2, M-14, mossburg 590, and .45. There is some irony here... the only time we carried M-14's was at burial ceremonies.

Pete0331
07-15-08, 05:29 PM
Pete, what your opinion about changing existing upper receivers with the H&K 416?

It would be a great addition, but there is no way it would be wide spread, it is to expesive for that.
If the USMC wants to keep the M4/M16 around it would be a nessesary addition.

SkilletsUSMC
07-16-08, 02:00 AM
On the M14...

Its a ****ing bad ass rifle, but ergonomicly its VASTLY inferior to the AR line of weapons.

If I could have my way the USMC would use the Robinson XCR.

Its has the ability to change CALIBERS in 1 minute, a gas piston, the charging handle is on the left side, ambidextrious bolt release, a folding stock for storage in vehicles, and a monolithic upper that is tougher than the baddest M1/M14...

Its the best of the M16/FAL/AK

Feast you eyes on her!!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/XCR_L_left.gif

SkilletsUSMC
07-16-08, 02:06 AM
I might add that its as reliable as the AK series of rifles

Petz
07-16-08, 02:22 AM
I might add that its as reliable as the AK series of rifles


the mechanical operated ones... that I could believe, but gas operated is tech that should get thrown out... no carbon going into the bolt anymore, no excess heat being routed back into the chamber... mechanical is the way to go, check out LWRC's setups... I'm sold.

RLeon
07-16-08, 02:23 AM
I think they featured that on "Future Weapons". It looks similar to the SIG 5.56.
Sweet.

FistFu68
07-16-08, 01:49 PM
:evilgrin: IT LOOKS LIKE A COPY CAT OF THE ISRAELI"GALIL"BUT THE GALIL HAS A BOTTLE OPENER ON HER NO CHIT!!!:evilgrin: :beer:

SkilletsUSMC
07-16-08, 09:10 PM
the mechanical operated ones... that I could believe, but gas operated is tech that should get thrown out... no carbon going into the bolt anymore, no excess heat being routed back into the chamber... mechanical is the way to go, check out LWRC's setups... I'm sold.

This is a gas piston rifle. Similar to the FAL/AK/M249 but with less mass as to decrease recoil.

Old Marine
07-16-08, 10:52 PM
My weapon of choice is the M1.

FistFu68
07-17-08, 04:16 PM
:usmc: MY WEAPON OF CHOICE "MK.54-S.A.D.M." :usmc: :D

CBS
07-18-08, 09:24 AM
No, your message about cleaning was COLT BS. When your life depends on a weapon to surpress fire or return fire...you clean it. It was initially set up for a rate of fire, that with a magazine, it could not support. 750 R/Minute...can you believe that ? Most of our problems were with the extrator jamming by NOT grabbing the spent round and then ejector NOT ejecting anything. So there you wetre punching the bore while the NVA just kept firing at you. Quite a thrill !! Of course an ole TRUSTY 1911A1 and some grenades sure help !! By the way, they'll always be MATELL..the toys from the Army testing grounds.....!

SF........>Chuck

Zulu 36
07-18-08, 01:14 PM
No, your message about cleaning was COLT BS. When your life depends on a weapon to surpress fire or return fire...you clean it. It was initially set up for a rate of fire, that with a magazine, it could not support. 750 R/Minute...can you believe that ? Most of our problems were with the extrator jamming by NOT grabbing the spent round and then ejector NOT ejecting anything. So there you wetre punching the bore while the NVA just kept firing at you. Quite a thrill !! Of course an ole TRUSTY 1911A1 and some grenades sure help !! By the way, they'll always be MATELL..the toys from the Army testing grounds.....!

SF........>Chuck

It wasn't so much Colt BS, as it was DoD BS. McNamara's wonder boys had a lot to do with forcing the M16 onto the Army, thence to the Marine Corps. The Air Force was an early and willing adopter of the precursor AR15, so that didn't help matters.

The Army wanted a bolt forward assist on the M16 from the beginning, but McNamara and his whiz kids thought the Army was just stonewalling (which the Army was, but they were trying to improve the rifle before bowing to the inevitible). DoD felt if a bolt forward assist was needed, Eugene Stoner would have put one on to start with.

The Army also wanted the chamber chrome plated to aid extraction. But again, DoD refused claiming it wasn't a necessary expense.

Third, and probably the worst, the gunpowder was formulated wrong for the type of gas-action used by the M16. This created much more crud and with an un-chromed chamber, led to the major malfunctions seen in the field (failure to extract and/or eject). This was the fault of the Army ordinance people as they ignored Stoner on the subject.

Added to the mix was the way the Army and Marines initially dumped the rifles onto the troops. Little training in maintenance led to poorly done maintenance. However, this was actually the minor part of the problem since it didn't take long for even a wonderfully cleaned M16 to screw up with dirty powder and un-chromed chamber.

Finally someone woke up at DoD. The M16A1 came out with the chromed chamber and a forward assist. The gunpowder was changed to a better formulation and along with more training on the weapon, reliability improved markedly. I can't recall having any problems with my M16A1s while in the Corps, except when using blanks.

The Air Force never went to the M16A1 as a general issue weapon. They retrofitted their AR15s and M16s with chromed barrels and carried on. I used an AR15 as my issue rifle for a number of years in the Air Guard and I had no problems with it, except when using blanks. I eventually went over to a CAR that did have a forward assist, but I never remember having to use it, except when using blanks.

CBS
07-18-08, 04:53 PM
It wasn't so much Colt BS, as it was DoD BS. McNamara's wonder boys had a lot to do with forcing the M16 onto the Army, thence to the Marine Corps. The Air Force was an early and willing adopter of the precursor AR15, so that didn't help matters.

The Army wanted a bolt forward assist on the M16 from the beginning, but McNamara and his whiz kids thought the Army was just stonewalling (which the Army was, but they were trying to improve the rifle before bowing to the inevitible). DoD felt if a bolt forward assist was needed, Eugene Stoner would have put one on to start with.

The Army also wanted the chamber chrome plated to aid extraction. But again, DoD refused claiming it wasn't a necessary expense.

Third, and probably the worst, the gunpowder was formulated wrong for the type of gas-action used by the M16. This created much more crud and with an un-chromed chamber, led to the major malfunctions seen in the field (failure to extract and/or eject). This was the fault of the Army ordinance people as they ignored Stoner on the subject.

Added to the mix was the way the Army and Marines initially dumped the rifles onto the troops. Little training in maintenance led to poorly done maintenance. However, this was actually the minor part of the problem since it didn't take long for even a wonderfully cleaned M16 to screw up with dirty powder and un-chromed chamber.

Finally someone woke up at DoD. The M16A1 came out with the chromed chamber and a forward assist. The gunpowder was changed to a better formulation and along with more training on the weapon, reliability improved markedly. I can't recall having any problems with my M16A1s while in the Corps, except when using blanks.

The Air Force never went to the M16A1 as a general issue weapon. They retrofitted their AR15s and M16s with chromed barrels and carried on. I used an AR15 as my issue rifle for a number of years in the Air Guard and I had no problems with it, except when using blanks. I eventually went over to a CAR that did have a forward assist, but I never remember having to use it, except when using blanks.

:evilgrin: While you speak of things that I've read and agree with for the most part, I'd like to add a little more sauce to the mixture. Someone in HIGH places had a munitions contract for the M-16 and thusly the rfiles success in combat. This someone just recently died but her family is remains prominent in the American landscape for her husband was a President of
these here United States. Someone has a lot of 'blood money' and will have to answer for it eventually !! Meantime the poor grunt, again, receives the shaft !! :evilgrin:

JRHD72
07-18-08, 05:30 PM
I own an M1 an I shot the 14 in boot. The 16 is a piece o chit! 4 yrs active n 4 crossed rifles

BadLuckChuck
07-18-08, 05:43 PM
It's not that bad of a rifle I mean sure it was made by Mattel but whatever. If i'm in the suck and i find an AK lying around I'll break the old 16 down but if not I won't cry about it.

The biggest cock up i think was replacing the 1911 .45 with the M9 now that is a worthless firearm.

Petz
07-25-08, 02:32 AM
the only good thing about that is the field expedient cleaning.... look into it, that's the main motivator for switching.

CBS
07-25-08, 11:07 PM
What do you think of the M-16
:evilgrin: :evilgrin:

My personal experience with it in Vietnam was
a simple one. Fire one round and then punch the bore as the Commies fired their AK-47 without stopping. It created many a Marines death and a class-action lawsuit in the 9th Distrcit Court in San Francisco. I can't stand the site of one to this day and now I'm told the Marines in Iraq are using M-14s or anything else they can find. No knock-down power......
really imagine that ? Since April of 1967 when
they were issued out at Dong Ha...wow, we really do support our troops.....with junk!!


What are your thoughts and personal experiences with this weapon ?

SEMPER FI............>Chuck[/quote]

Gentlemen: More good news....watch your weapon !!

http://www.liquibyte.com/image/officer.pdf (http://webmail.west.cox.net/do/redirect?url=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.liquibyte.com% 252Fimage%252Fofficer.pdf)

SEMPER FI.........>CHUCK

Quinbo
07-26-08, 02:50 AM
LOL .... the M-16 was not .... read my lips not.... manufatured by mattel. There were some plastic parts made by mattel for the AR-15 but even then there is no mickey mouse stamp on them. I'm a boot so all I have ever known is the M-16. I am biased in that regard because I never carried anything else into combat.

FistFu68
07-26-08, 12:53 PM
:evilgrin: I CAN REMEMBER LAYING IN A'LOT OF AMBUSHES @ L.P."KILLER TEAMS".WITH THE DUST GUARD DOWN,OUR WAY OF FORWARD ASSIST;WAS A PUSH ON THE SIDE OF BOLT FORWARD TOO SEAT A ROUND.HABIT I STILL HAVE 2DAY WITH MY NEW AR-15.USED TOO CARRY LUBE FOR MY RIFLE "IN COUNTRY" IN EMPTY BUGG JUICE BOTTLE.USED TOO SOAK THE BOLT ASSEMBLY AREA.I PERSONALLY NEVER HAD ONE JAM,NOT EVEN THE 2DAY SHOOTOUT;W/ THE NVA.IN AH SHAU VALLEY.I'D GO TOO WAR WITH A NEW ONE WITHOUT RESERVATION!!! :evilgrin: :iwo:

montana
07-26-08, 04:08 PM
a grunt from third plt got in close on a killer team...did a virtical but stroke to the head fo the first gook....the second one he had to hit with tha barrel because the stalk wasnt there anymore...he said he went from John Wayne to supper chicken the rest of the night...walking around with that usless weapon...he went to the M14 after that...there were quite a few packing the M14 in 69/70...saw some of the 16s rounds do a great deal of damage to the gooks they hit...but other times saw them hit and not even slow them down....every one i hit with the 14 droped even one enraged water buffalow...something the 16 could not do...never liked it and still dont...M14 brought me home

FistFu68
07-26-08, 05:44 PM
:evilgrin: I NEVER SAW A GOOK OR BUNKER IN A FIREFIGHT THAT WAS MORE THAN 30YRDS FROM US.PLUS WE USED THE BOYONET LUG 4A REASON!I GUESS THE OLD SAYING DIFFERENT STROKES 4 DIFFERENT FOLK'S,HAD SUM SUBSTANCE BEHIND IT???:evilgrin::iwo:

Petz
07-27-08, 01:46 PM
not every weapon is going to satisfy every situation, or person. I appreciate the controversy over this weapon because it's a perfect example of our money mongering politicians who make certain things happen regardless of the cost of human lives (haliburton KBR killed 14 service members in country due to bad wiring) just to make that money. Who are they to do this to us and get away with it?

On another note, the M16 has been in service long enough now to have it's problems fixed... so they can learn from mistakes, it's just how they correct the problem that more important. Instead of just fixing what people gripped about they should have fixed the way they acquire new service weapons too.

ROTORORDY
07-28-08, 02:42 AM
its okay but the thing jams too much and the gas coupling bends almost every time i fire it for some reason i dont know why. thats my input