Your Thoughts M-16

[Pete0331]

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]

(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]

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!!!

[AL49BGN]

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]

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]

.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]

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]

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]

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

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 issue

[Pete0331]

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 issue

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]

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]

Would you feel safe clearing a room with one?

Yes.

[thewookie]

Yes.

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]

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]

What do you think of the M-16


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!!!!