Does anyone NOT like the m16?

[mcdowell9]

I was parkerizing Two pistols for friends of my dad today and while doing everything we were talking about different weapons, looking over some of my dads and one of the things that was lead to was everyone chiming in about how the M16 shoots Dinky 5.56 rounds and we need to change weapons because the m16 and all its variants are crappy toys.
As a 17 year old who wants to be in the Marines I am interested in Marine's take on the m16. This debate also seems to really widespread. Do any of you guys not like it?
I used to dislike it and have the same mentality but after reading alot and watching alot I see nothing wrong with the weapon and most men who use it, swear by it.
I noticed alotta people who ***** about them don't use it, or may have never even shot one.

[BR34]

I recently read a story about a guy who mistakenly shot his cat (thought it was a fox) with a AR. The round went in through his chest and exited near his rib cage. The shot was taken in the dark at appx 100 yards, and the cat is still alive and kicking to this day.

But does that mean everyone who was ever shot with the .22 caliber pea shooter should climb out of their grave because it's not a "real" round?

I personally prefer AKs. I have one in .223, and one in 12ga. The .223 I would never use for self/home defense. If I had my choice the U.S. military would be using 308s and 45s. But I don't so this is all irrelevant.

[mcdowell9]

I recently read a story about a guy who mistakenly shot his cat (thought it was a fox) with a AR. The round went in through his chest and exited near his rib cage. The shot was taken in the dark at appx 100 yards, and the cat is still alive and kicking to this day.

But does that mean everyone who was ever shot with the .22 caliber pea shooter should climb out of their grave because it's not a "real" round?

I personally prefer AKs. I have one in .223, and one in 12ga. The .223 I would never use for self/home defense. If I had my choice the U.S. military would be using 308s and 45s. But I don't so this is all irrelevant.

Well I think the case with the example of the Cat is that a cat is really small, so the bullet had enough energy to travel straight through. Supposedly, in the human body, a .223 won't go all the way through and damaged organ by shredding to pieces.

I have not shot a AK but my dad owns a SKS, the round is great, big, no doubt. But the recoil and balance of the gun are horrible. Maybe an AK is a bit more balanced but whats the use of a big round if you can't shoot it really accurately,right?
They both have ups and downs for sure, i just don't know if the downs are bad enough to greatly affect it. Has anyone been deployed who didn't feel safe with there weapons?

[Fievel]

I guess it all depends on the M-16 variant. If I am not mistaken, the A1 had a jamming problem and could empty a magazine before the first round casing hit the deck. I can't confirm that, but that was what I was told by a few Vietnam Marines.

The M-16A2 lets you fire single or three round burst. I have had no complaints with this weapon. I rarely had a jam and it will definitely kill a man. The round is small compared to a 7.62mm round, but I believe the 5.56 rounds are supposed to enter the body and richochette/splatter around inside the body as opposed to blowing a hole right through someone.

The weapon can take some punishment and then work fairly reliably with a quick brushing to get the dirt off the bolt and out of the chamber. It is true, the M-16 almost feels like a toy because it is mostly plastic or whatever plastic-like material, but it is very reliable in my experiences with it. I won't say I would take it over an M240 or anything, but I trust it in combat. I think another aspect that makes the M-16 so reliable and nice to use is that you can mount a ton of sh*t on it as far as laser and reflex sights, and different types of scopes.

I think the Marines are moving over to the M-4 now, if they haven't already. I haven't used that weapon, but I heard it jams a lot.

[thewookie]

Shot placement.

[Petz]

yes... wookie is right.

anything that can move a tiny object faster than you can throw it is a vast improvement.

now make that thing move it faster than sound and you're cooking with gas.

ok, the M-4 is for certain billets only... it's replacing the SNCOs blanket M-9 issue thing... m-9s will be for special billets (armorers and tank crewmen and the such)

the M-16A4 is the new service rifle with all of the Corps having already changed over.

it adds weight but it added versatility. the numbers look to make it weigh the same as the m-14 did... so we really shouldn't be complaining about a pound or two increase... deal with it!

now, those "rules" of who gets what weapon is really dependant on your unit.

Semper pick up a weapon and kill your enemy with it... yut!

[Pete0331]

Shot placement.

Bam!
Wookie nailed it.
Any scrote licker will die if hit in the right place.
That is true from .22 cal to .50 BMG.


I haven't used that weapon, but I heard it jams a lot.

If it jams a lot it is because the unit armorers don't know what they're doing.
Just because the internal components look the same as an M-16 doesn't mean they are.
Usually it is caused by armorers putting in the wrong extractor spring.


Speaking of the weapon itself, the M-16 is good weapon, but it is starting to become a dated design.
There are better options out there but the M-16 works.
When it doesn't work, it is usually operator error:
using bad magazines, not lubing properly, not cleaning enough, or cleaning to much.

The reason people don't like the M-16 and family is because they are comparing the weapon to another with a different mission.
You could argue that the M-1903 Springfield is a better weapon then the M-16 because of accuracy and range.
Different type of warfare, different mission, different weapon.
The M-16 does the job it was tasked for.
When a weapon can't do the job it is tasked for you see new weapons rise to the occasion.
This was seen in the 80's with the replacement of the M-16A1 as the automatic rifle with the M-249 SAW.

Technology changes and tactics change to accommodate the new weapons.
The use of the English longbow at the battle of Agincourt is a good example.

[Petz]

um, M-16 A0.... not A2 or A4 or even the A1.

you're getting his statement confused. I do like your point though.

[mcdowell9]

yes... wookie is right.

anything that can move a tiny object faster than you can throw it is a vast improvement.

now make that thing move it faster than sound and you're cooking with gas.

ok, the M-4 is for certain billets only... it's replacing the SNCOs blanket M-9 issue thing... m-9s will be for special billets (armorers and tank crewmen and the such)

the M-16A4 is the new service rifle with all of the Corps having already changed over.

it adds weight but it added versatility. the numbers look to make it weigh the same as the m-14 did... so we really shouldn't be complaining about a pound or two increase... deal with it!

now, those "rules" of who gets what weapon is really dependant on your unit.

Semper pick up a weapon and kill your enemy with it... yut!

Yeah thats my thinking, if you shoot a lung with a .223 or 7.6 it will still be devastating, if you shoot an arm with a 5.56 or 7.62 it still not gonna kill the person. And if anything is sticking out its gonna be a weapon and a head looking down the weapon.
The a4 weighs more?? From what?? I would think have picatinny rails instead of the handle sheds weight enough that anything else wouldnt matter.
also fievel, jamming is probably going to be from, surfaces, tolerances, or a particular part. Since on these guns alot is interchangeable, that means you can change out or upgrade a part if it is causing the weapon to malfunction.
Btw didn't the m14 weigh like 9 lbs or something?? There is know weigh you can get ar15 platform to weigh that much, wtf.
I have no shot one but I have handled many. I think you are right, the polymers used instead of metal add to the "toy" affect but also because it has a thin pistol grip. I think that is great, easier to handle and keep hold of. It fits in my hands perfectly. I don't like round float tubes, I like picatinny with the rubber guards on it.
What are the differences between the a2 and a4, do you know?

[Petz]

the rails themselves are heavier than just plastic and the lighter handle frame design.

the piccitinny rails are high carbon steel not the HSLA stuff.

I think it's a difference of about a pound or so... don't have the numbers but I can feel the difference... which implies about a pounds change.

[mcdowell9]

The reason people don't like the M-16 and family is because they are comparing the weapon to another with a different mission.
You could argue that the M-1903 Springfield is a better weapon then the M-16 because of accuracy and range.
Different type of warfare, different mission, different weapon.
The M-16 does the job it was tasked for.
When a weapon can't do the job it is tasked for you see new weapons rise to the occasion.
This was seen in the 80's with the replacement of the M-16A1 as the automatic rifle with the M-249 SAW.

Technology changes and tactics change to accommodate the new weapons.
The use of the English longbow at the battle of Agincourt is a good example.

I hear alot of "we never should've stop using the m14"
How do you guy feel about that?
I think the m14 is great but wouldn't suit our tasks as well as the m16. I cannot picture someone walking around or clearing a house with a m14 and I don't see someone getting out of a humvee very easily. It is probably a good mid-long range for one person in a squad to carry or something.

[Petz]

picture the M-16... now the M-4

ok now picture the M-14 now the sub-compact varient of a M-14....

there is talk about getting certain Bns to have some M-16s re-chambered to have the 6.8 with an 11:1 twist (I think that would create a lot of pressure... 8:1 maybe better) but I don't know where that idea is in approval if it hasn't been denied already.

[Lisa 23]

As a 17 year old who wants to be in the Marines I am interested in Marine's take on the m16. This debate also seems to really widespread. Do any of you guys not like it?
When speaking to Marines, refer to them as such.....Marines.......not you guys. They've EARNED it!!! :usmc:

[Pete0331]

I hear alot of "we never should've stop using the m14"
How do you guy feel about that?
I think the m14 is great but wouldn't suit our tasks as well as the m16. I cannot picture someone walking around or clearing a house with a m14 and I don't see someone getting out of a humvee very easily. It is probably a good mid-long range for one person in a squad to carry or something.

This is turning into a 5.56 vs. 7.62 debate.

Both are rounds designed for different capabilities.

Studies around WW2 highlighted that most engagements occurred between 300 and 500 yards.
Assault rifles were designed to take advantage of this.
The first assault rifle round, the German 7.92x39K, was a result.
Up until that point it was either short range sub-machineguns or long range rifles.

The M-14 wasn't designed to be an assault rifle.
It was designed to take the billet of an automatic rifle.

[mcdowell9]

When speaking to Marines, refer to them as such.....Marines.......not you guys. They've EARNED it!!! :usmc:
As a 17 year old who wants to be in the Marines I am interested in Marine's take on the m16. This debate also seems to really widespread. Do any of you guys not like it?
http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/images_ln/misc/images_ln/spacer.gif



Hey, I am still in school. I get killed for redundancy in writing lol. I did refer to them as Marines, but it sounded weird to use the term so excessively within 1-2 sentences.Also, after properly addressing someone, using particular pronouns is a way to appear friendly. The sentence" do any of you guys not like it" is an attempt at sounding more personal after already having properly addressed Marines in order to show I am talking personally and am looking for a very personal opinion. I apologize however, if thats the way ya like it then thats how it'll be done.

[mcdowell9]

picture the M-16... now the M-4

ok now picture the M-14 now the sub-compact varient of a M-14....

there is talk about getting certain Bns to have some M-16s re-chambered to have the 6.8 with an 11:1 twist (I think that would create a lot of pressure... 8:1 maybe better) but I don't know where that idea is in approval if it hasn't been denied already.
The biggest difference between the 5.6 and the 6.8 is that there is an abundance of 5.56. It may be a better round but it will have so negative affects short term because of availability. I may be wrong but thats what I fear about switching rounds. I guess its that way with switching to any other round or weapon though.

[Petz]

he has a point.... you salute and greet an officer only once a section of the day... unless of course you don't like him and salute him 20 times a day.

we had a problem with our XO (1st LT) and saluted him every single time we saw him... he stopped us once and told us not to salute him but once a day and we told him that he should show us that in the customs and courtesies MCO... he got ****ed but continued to saluting us.

it was funny.

[Fubar5812]

the problem with the M-14 in vietnam was that it had a full auto capability....now spooked G.I's would empty that 20 round magazine into the bush on full auto and by the 19th shot there pointing at the SKY because the recoil was so crazy. the m-14 is used as a DMR rifle in the Marine Corps these days with great success.

I love the M-16/M4 series personally. it's lightweight,the rounds are lighter yes but that allows you to carry more ammo (something eugen stoner was going for when he developed it) very versatile,you can throw all kinds of crazy **** on that thing and it's accurate. Granted it is getting to be old and we really should be looking at something else but it has done the job for 40+ years and continues to do so today.

I read recently in the Marine times that they where thinking of putting telescopic stocks on the m16a4 to help with shooting while wearing body armor,IDK if it's just me but I have trouble getting that full stock into my shoulder pocket correctly when im wearing my flak,which is why I like the m4.

[mcdowell9]

the problem with the M-14 in vietnam was that it had a full auto capability....now spooked G.I's would empty that 20 round magazine into the bush on full auto and by the 19th shot there pointing at the SKY because the recoil was so crazy. the m-14 is used as a DMR rifle in the Marine Corps these days with great success.

I love the M-16/M4 series personally. it's lightweight,the rounds are lighter yes but that allows you to carry more ammo (something eugen stoner was going for when he developed it) very versatile,you can throw all kinds of crazy **** on that thing and it's accurate. Granted it is getting to be old and we really should be looking at something else but it has done the job for 40+ years and continues to do so today.

I read recently in the Marine times that they where thinking of putting telescopic stocks on the m16a4 to help with shooting while wearing body armor,IDK if it's just me but I have trouble getting that full stock into my shoulder pocket correctly when im wearing my flak,which is why I like the m4.
I don't know what the rules are but you can always buy a collapsible stock like one that is on the m4. I was looking at it one time and seeing the views on it. Alot of guys seemed to like the regular stock and say it can take a beating, but many others said the same as you, it wasn't made to compensate for the Flak vests and it throws you off.
If it works on the m4 then why would it break on a an a4..I have never heard a stock breaking so maybe its a good idea.
What could replace the platform though?? There haven't been any really outstanding and obvious weapons that could replace it from what I can think of. Its a good design. And yeah, a hell of alotta stuff can get put on it.

[Petz]

The biggest difference between the 5.6 and the 6.8 is that there is an abundance of 5.56. It may be a better round but it will have so negative affects short term because of availability. I may be wrong but thats what I fear about switching rounds. I guess its that way with switching to any other round or weapon though.


6.8 has much more stopping power...

[Fievel]

I liked the M-16. I drove AAVs and it became a hassle to pull it out and engage with it, but I found a way to easily grab it, shoulder it, and fire it within a reasonable amount of time. Some of my fellow war-breeds swapped the Docs for their 9 mils. I wanted the M-16, though, so my vote on this subject would be:

I like the M-16.

[Fievel]

I don't know what the rules are but you can always buy a collapsible stock like one that is on the m4. I was looking at it one time and seeing the views on it. Alot of guys seemed to like the regular stock and say it can take a beating, but many others said the same as you, it wasn't made to compensate for the Flak vests and it throws you off.
If it works on the m4 then why would it break on a an a4..I have never heard a stock breaking so maybe its a good idea.
What could replace the platform though?? There haven't been any really outstanding and obvious weapons that could replace it from what I can think of. Its a good design. And yeah, a hell of alotta stuff can get put on it.

Can't buy aftermarket parts for your weapons. Oh the possibilities if you could ...

[mcdowell9]

Can't buy aftermarket parts for your weapons. Oh the possibilities if you could ...
for ANYTHING?? I can understand internals but I thought that you could buy differnt forearms/float tubes, sights, Slings, Flash lights, Grips, magazines etc.
Why the hell do all these companies make Foregrips and Magpulls, flip up sights, and stuff if you can't buy and use them?

[Fievel]

for ANYTHING?? I can understand internals but I thought that you could buy differnt forearms/float tubes, sights, Slings, Flash lights, Grips, magazines etc.
Why the hell do all these companies make Foregrips and Magpulls, flip up sights, and stuff if you can't buy and use them?

Probably for civs who own the same weapons. In my Marine Corps experience, aftermarket parts were grounds for court martial. In 2003, we rigged our M-16s with extra straps from the MOLLE (I think I spelled that right) packs to make a sling that held the rifle across your chest similar to the way the slings do now. The Staff NCOs came down on us hard and said that if they caught us doing that again, we would be court martialed.

I think that if someone bought some aftermarket parts for their weapon, the armorer would kill them before the rest of their chain of command had a chance. :D

[mcdowell9]

Probably for civs who own the same weapons. In my Marine Corps experience, aftermarket parts were grounds for court martial. In 2003, we rigged our M-16s with extra straps from the MOLLE (I think I spelled that right) packs to make a sling that held the rifle across your chest similar to the way the slings do now. The Staff NCOs came down on us hard and said that if they caught us doing that again, we would be court martialed.

I think that if someone bought some aftermarket parts for their weapon, the armorer would kill them before the rest of their chain of command had a chance. :D
So what is issued that doesn't come on the weapon?? like aimpoints,Eotechs, Slings, extra mags, etc.

EDIT:also, what about parts that cause absolutely no problem, are not extra or have anything more for the armorer to break down or keep track of.I know things like a bolt or Firing pin could get you in trouble but what about something like an ambidextrous safety????

[BR34]

Maybe an AK is a bit more balanced but whats the use of a big round if you can't shoot it really accurately,right?

AKs are notorious for being inaccurate. That's isn't because they are actually inaccurate weapons, it's because they are shot by people in 3rd world countries who have no training and are using the poorest example of a AK available to them. I can easily put a fist size group on a target at 100 yards with mine. For the wars we're fighting we don't need 2" accuracy at 600 yards. Don't buy into the hype.


If it works on the m4 then why would it break on a an a4..I have never heard a stock breaking so maybe its a good idea.The U.S. Army is trying to develop the stock. Breaking isn't the problem. Building a reliable recoil spring into the stock is.

As far as the WHY the A4 is heavier than the A2, in addition to the reasons the SSgt gave you, it also has a heavier barrel.