OK, many people have complained over the M16's unreliabilty...but why exactly? I'm no gun expert so I can't exactly understand the reason(s) I was given. Here is an image of a disintegrated M16 with all the parts laid out in view. Can anyone circle the part of the gun that causes the reliabilty issue and what is exactly the best solution to fix it(If it hasn't been already) without sacrificing the gun's accuracy and light weight?
The m16s reputation for being unreliable came from its time in Vietnam where it was notouris for jamming, although that was partly caused by the type of ammunition used. So that reputation has followed it so many people still think it is a very unrelibale weapon. I dont know alot about modern M16s but I have heard conflicting views on it reliability from various people who have said to used the weapon.
Im pretty sure we use something like the M4, which is essentialy a M16 if im not correct, but they practicly fixed the jamming problem, also the M16 couldnt take as much as the Ak-47, which might be part of the reason it gets picked on. The AK-47 you could throw in a mud puddle and come back tw oyears later pick it up and use it, M4 however had more range and accuracy i beleive....
It really is because of what Wooly Bully said, people who want to know about guns, get involved in the gun community, and hear people saying the M16 is shit (when it isn't) and they think they know all about guns when they don't. I mean that Vietnam fact is about the only thing I do know about guns.
I can't see the picture of the dismantled M16... Have you posted it yet?
Anyway why do you want it circled, buying one...? :confused:
Main problem with the M16 is that it is overly complex. There are so many parts that can (and do) go wrong. If you look at the workings of an AK, you can see it doesn't have an awful lot in it, where as an M16 has tons of parts. Its not practical on a battlefield of close quarters. With an M16, you need replacement parts for almost everything. I mean if one thing goes wrong, your pretty much screwed. But the simplicity of an AK means that you only need the very core parts of the gun to work, the rest is just a shell. Thats why its favoured by soooo many groups.
the M16 does suck. It is unrealiable, and yes, today in the sands of the middle east. the m4 is an m16 with a shorter barrel a little bit better at not jamming and its a newer model. the ak however will kill an M16 in any contest besides accuacy. the m16 is accurate, yes, but if you shoot it at a 4 inch high, 4 inch wide, peice of wood, it wont even penentrate it, the ak can go through 2 peices, if you shoot an m16 at a cinder block, it'll leave a tiny hole, the ak blows the thing in half. the m16 shoots a tiny round .223, --- its about that big, the ak shoots a .762 ---- about that big, and in a gun, its a differance.
Its my personal view that they shoudn't have got rid of the M14 in the first place, its a great weapon but I'm a little biased towards the M14 wish I had one :D . Oh and Breslin I love your sig :nodding:
See, the M-16 doesn't suck, as Wooly said. Its just frowned upon because of its setbacks. People don't like it because it's heavier and longer than the M4A1, which is just a shorter version of the M16. The military has been talking about retiring the M16 because of complaints about it in Iraq from Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. They mainly complain about not being able to freely maneuver it from a Humvee (which has small amounts of room in it with the .50 cal mounted on top), and because of its jamming with the sand and such from storms. The only reason it has stayed around so long is because of its high rate of accuracy. Whilst the M4A1 is a shorter version of the M16 and more favored because of its full auto capabilities, some "veterans" don't quite care for it because since it is shorter, it has lower accuracy than its predecessor. The AK is more favored by military groups such as the Al Quadea (sp?), Chinese military, and other urban groups because it has been mass manufactured, more easily accessible to those so called "warlords", and its ability to take more abuse than the american's rifle. The AK has lower accuracy because of its poorly made ironsights. During Vietnam the demand for weapons was great so instead of fully testing and modifying the weapon the manufacturers build and sent the weapons off not giving them more than little tests as seeing if a little mud would hurt, submurging it then shooting, and actually seeing if the gun would fire. The way the gun is built makes it less likely to jam because of the casing it is put in. It has very little spaces where dust and dirt can penetrate (other than the chamber and such), and it has a stronger outer case which allows it to be dropped in various ways which won't necessarily damage the gun. There really isn't much more I can say, its all about who uses the gun. You have those who protect the gun and clean it regularly, and those who don't. You have those who have a good shot, and those who don't.