m16 is an excellent weapon; accurate,low weigth, low recoil,. i have been fortunate to shoot both m16 and ak 47 and from a pure shooting point of view the m16 owns, it is so ligth you can shoot it with one hand (if you have a strong hand) i wont call m16 unreliable but it is high maintenance .when it comes to a weapon for old fashioned war the ak is king, by trading extreme accuracy you gain unparalleled reliability. not as acurate as the m16 it is still acurate enough to hit targets under 300 yards. the next best thing to ak47 is ak74, you get reliability of ak47 with low recoil of m16 , sure wish ak74 where easier to come by.
Here's a site that has a lot of information on the M16, since I'm not much of a gun person myself. :p Here's an exert about Vietnam-period M16's:
1965 - 1967. Field reports from Vietnam began to look much more pessimistic. M16 rifles, issued to US troops in the Vietnam, severely jammed in combat, resulting in numerous casualties. There were some causes for malfunction. First of all, during the introduction of the new rifle and its ammunition into the service, US Army replaced originally specified Dupont IMR powder with standard ball powder, used in 7.62x51mm NATO ammunition. The ball powder produced much more fouling, that quickly jammed the actions of the M16 unless the gun was cleared well and often. This pitifully combined with the fact that the initial M16 rifles were promoted by the Colt as "low maintenance", so, for the sake of economy, no cleaning supplies were procured for new M16 rifles, and no weapon care training was conducted fro the troops. As a result, soldiers did not knew how to clean their rifles, and had no provisions for cleaning, and thing soon turned bad. To add the trouble, the ball powders also had a different pressure curve, so they produced higher pressures at the gas port, giving the rise to the rate of fire, and, thus, decreasing accuracy and increasing parts wear.
It does sound like the ammunition type caused some difficulties, and resulted in frequent jamming.
It was more or less inevitable that this thread would become an M16 - AK47 comparison thread...
Anyway, so what, did they change the ammo type on it or something?
Yojimbo Anyway, so what, did they change the ammo type on it or something?
The initial powder used in the M16 as part of the ball cartridge caused excessive fouling internally in the rifle. This led to the action on it to cease to function (jam).
...and the bullet was tiny, when we shot one of there guys "OUCH OUCH OUCH", they shot one of our guys, OUCH *dies*.
The M-16 is simply getting too old--the XM-8 is a far better, more versatile choice. Here's sime info: http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0%2C14632%2CSoldiertech_XM8%2C%2C00.html
The M-16 is a really odd piece seen as the US spends tremendeous amounts of money on their military and still they don't have a reliable assault rifle.. The XM-8 should have a hard time to be any worse.
A lot of the AK-series have accuracy problems, often due to poor manufacturing quality. Not even the best seem to be fully as accurate as M-16s, (from what I have read) but how often do you really see a camouflaged enemy well enough to get a good shot at even 300m?
At least the AK I was issued was prone to rust, and only after one and a half weeks of use and poor maintenance (forgot the cleaning tools at the garrison...) it was really hard to clean. Seen it actually had worked perfectly, except the instance when the fire selector froze, although decent amounts of sand, snow and needles inside, it can't be blamed to be irreliable, although it IMO still should be done of corrosion proof steel. :)
An assault rifle is supposed to work in situations when it's dropped on a cliff, or when it gets buried in sand when taking cover, hits a tree or stone when repositioning, and when it suddenly gets out from a warm tent to the cold outside. And it's a tool, not a friend to take care of, whatever they may say. Just remembered a guy actually broke the steel trigger of his assault rifle, and that was a quality Finnish made one.. When using it enough anything can break, a M-16 probably just will break more often.
That XM-8 link BTW explains a lot of the cons of the M-16, although it seems a bit biased. They advertise a shovel that looks exactly like the shovel we were issued, and that thing jammed constantly, especially if in contact with sand... I wonder how the more complicated equipment on that page works. :uhm:
the XM-8 is all looks, it stil fires a .223, and its fucking plastic. the barrel and all the metal-need is metal, but the outer caseing AND THE CLIP is plastic.
Plastics are ok as long as important parts of the mechanism aren't plastic. The outer casing might be a problem, depending on the quality of it. The clip certainly shouldn't be much of a problem, seen as they are ought to be replaced more often than the gun itself anyway. Plastics usually are more comfortable to touch, so in fact it could be a good solution. (Our RK clips are plastic, with some metall parts, and the problem with them wasn't the plastics, as the spring flying away if landing with the clip touching the ground first in a bad angle is much more irritating than being able to crack it with a hammer.) And as long as it gets rid of some of the bad reliablity with the M-16, it should be a good thing, for Americans, that is.
The .223 is a mystery, but maybe the ability to shoot it more comfortably with one hand is that important. :lookaround: Anyway I'm happy if the enemy uses it instead of something better. :)
Well, I have been in the US Army since 1999, and have used both M-4 carbine and M-16 rifle extensively. Here are things wrong with the current rifle: 1. Round way to underpowered. Good for up close combat, sucks long distance 2. Weighs too much 3. Jam prone- double feeding constantly 4. Hard to clean 5. Needs to be cleaned constantly and many others... I can not wait till my unit gets the XM8 Here is an excelent site with XM8 videos and review http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/blackwater/xm81.html