What is wrong with the M16? 34 replies

Please wait...

Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#21 14 years ago

m-16 rocks!




vladtemplar

Resistance is futile

50 XP

29th May 2004

0 Uploads

1,276 Posts

0 Threads

#22 14 years ago

Have you had to use it in combat? Why would you say "It rocks" ?




Tas

Serious business brigade

50 XP

4th September 2004

0 Uploads

7,275 Posts

0 Threads

#23 14 years ago
vladtemplarHave you had to use it in combat? Why would you say "It rocks" ?

Because some people dont need a good reason to claim things... its uhm.. ignorance.. yeah, thats it.




Wooly_Bully

I love my ball

50 XP

31st January 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#24 14 years ago

I like the looks of the Fn Scar, I wonder how good that weapon will turn out to be in combat.




vladtemplar

Resistance is futile

50 XP

29th May 2004

0 Uploads

1,276 Posts

0 Threads

#25 14 years ago

Well, the only soldiers using it are Spec Ops, so I guess we will never know :)




Spyder F-16

Amerika ist Wunderbar

50 XP

2nd February 2003

0 Uploads

2,768 Posts

0 Threads

#26 14 years ago

In my opinion, the M-16 is a better distance weapon than for CQB. The AK is much better in CQB as it's a Pay n' Spray, and has the power for it. The M16 tends to be more accurate at a longer range where you could afford to have to put a few shots into a person to kill. The M16 tends to use a 5.56 NATO (similar to .223Rem). The .223 is a very small round, it's smaller than the .243 that I tend to use on deer. The 7.62x46mm round that the AK47 tends to use has a large bullet with more knockdown power. But the round though is inherently inaccurate at the farther range, and tends to have a large drop in trajectory over distance. As far as reliablility, the newer M16's tend to be fairly reliable, but are vulnerable to jamming if they are not kept in good condition, since the M16 is manufacutred to high tolerances. The M16 fires the best with well loaded ammunition (Not Military Surplus), and good maitence. In vietnam, the big issue with the M16 was how the Reciever of the weapon was made. But the design has been improved since then. The AK has the best of reliablilty due to it's simple design, as well as building to loose tolerances that the russians perfer. As said, the AK is able to have the hell beaten out of it and still fire.




Artie Bucco

Guey>Tio(a)

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

3,682 Posts

0 Threads

#27 14 years ago
Spyder F-16In my opinion, the M-16 is a better distance weapon than for CQB. The AK is much better in CQB as it's a Pay n' Spray, and has the power for it. The M16 tends to be more accurate at a longer range where you could afford to have to put a few shots into a person to kill. The M16 tends to use a 5.56 NATO (similar to .223Rem). The .223 is a very small round, it's smaller than the .243 that I tend to use on deer. The 7.62x46mm round that the AK47 tends to use has a large bullet with more knockdown power. But the round though is inherently inaccurate at the farther range, and tends to have a large drop in trajectory over distance. As far as reliablility, the newer M16's tend to be fairly reliable, but are vulnerable to jamming if they are not kept in good condition, since the M16 is manufacutred to high tolerances. The M16 fires the best with well loaded ammunition (Not Military Surplus), and good maitence. In vietnam, the big issue with the M16 was how the Reciever of the weapon was made. But the design has been improved since then. The AK has the best of reliablilty due to it's simple design, as well as building to loose tolerances that the russians perfer. As said, the AK is able to have the hell beaten out of it and still fire.

I would rather use a .308 for long range than a .223 any day of the week.




Krieg der Sterne

Future Serviceman

50 XP

25th May 2005

0 Uploads

1,254 Posts

0 Threads

#28 14 years ago
TIKIthe 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.

From what I read so far,they say it better then the M4.:lookaround:




Huffardo

Arrrr!

48,770 XP

29th November 2003

0 Uploads

4,632 Posts

0 Threads

#29 14 years ago

The AK really has tremendous trajectory drop, if you forget to adjust the sigths to the right distance you won't hit anything. If I'm not too wrong it's like 30cm on 300m. The slower bullet speed makes the target lead for moving targets bigger too. The full auto is a really nice feature, especially with the drum mag. :naughty: (In practise it's worse than it might sound, figure sleeping or taking cover on a drum mag equipped AK, that might be a reason why they aren't used...)

Seems like some of the rumours about the M-16 actually are true, thanks, Vladtemplar.




Mast3rofPuppets VIP Member

08'aIgnorance is not an excuse

50 XP

28th November 2003

0 Uploads

8,198 Posts

0 Threads

#30 14 years ago

Sweden has bought some M16A2's and AKM's just so our soldiers can try them out. According to Swedish soldiers the M16A2 feels very light and plastic. They say that the accuracy was about the same as the AK5 (wich is the Swedish service rifle, and no, it doesn't have anything to do with Russia or AK 47). They also said that it jammed very easily around snow and mud. Some of the pro's was that it was easy to walk around with duo to the low weight and that it holds the last round when the magazine gets empty. I've heard soldiers saying that thier AK5 didn't jam a single time during thier military service.

When it comes to the 5.56mm, please read this article:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/556mmNATO.htm

When my dad was in the military he was a KSP 58 (wich uses 7.62mm ammo) gunner on a supply unit, and he said that his loader had to carry like 15kg of ammo for that KSP 58! That's not counting the spare barrel or the ammo for the loaders own AK4 (wich also uses 7.62mm).

This is how a KSP 58 looks like:

ksp-58.jpg