View Full Version : M-16/870 combination
August 30, 2002, 09:26 AM
I've seen an 870 specially modified to fit on an M-16 rifle (attached to the bayonet lug and handguard). This was demonstrated at one of the Soldier of Fortune conventions in Las Vegas in the late 1980's. Is this combination used by anyone, and is it even practical?
August 30, 2002, 11:27 AM
I saw one at a military show about ten years ago. The 870 had a real short barrel, probably about 8 inches or so, enough so the gun could hold three rounds. Made the setup awfully heavy. I think the practicality part comes in having both at once, geared towards a breaching/ offensive weapon system.
Did I mention that it was really heavy (and awkard)?
August 30, 2002, 04:47 PM
I saw that at the same demo, most likely.
As far as i can see, it serves no useful function, because the shotgun does exactly the same thing the m-16 does (fire inert lead things)
now, if it fired some kind of anti tank rocket or HE round or a death ray or something, then i could see the use.
August 30, 2002, 05:59 PM
Come on? Are you guys saying you could possible resist such a setup? Just look at it!!
"As far as i can see, it serves no useful function, because the shotgun does exactly the same thing the m-16 does (fire inert lead things)"
Come on, man!! Sure the M16 can "hit them" but the shotgun loaded with buck can REALLY hit them!! And there are those of us who don't think much of the M16's stopping power, so we can reserve it for longer range engagments.... keeping it's little friend handy for the close encounters. ;)
BTW, looks like that Mossberg module can hold 5 total rounds!! Look out all Niguraguan Guerillas and Extraterrestrial Sportsmen!
August 30, 2002, 06:47 PM
The combo must dryweigh in at about 12 lbs or more. You may recall one of the reasons given for withdrawing the great M-14 from service was the weight, a mere 10 lbs.
Sounds like one of those ideas that just didn't work in the real world.....
August 30, 2002, 08:26 PM
that's all fine and dandy, but I'm not going to lug around something that weighs 12 pounds and is not a garand design.
I personally think an AR type weapon has every bit the effacacy the shotgun does at close range, so there's no benefit to dding a shotgun to it.
The only shotgun thing I might consider is the C more systems one, but only because it's really light and has box magazines (the only thing an ar can't do that a shotgun can is door breeching)
August 30, 2002, 08:44 PM
Seems like a way to make two good weapons into one bad one.
If something doesn't outright break, it's gonna shake loose.
August 30, 2002, 11:44 PM
Dave…there was and is no such thing as a logical reason for ever taking the legendary M14 out of service, they are all excuses, made to justify the politics of the situation!! The mere fact that we ever let the epitome of the centerfire, smokeless, semi auto, repeaters get replaced by an inferior design in almost ever respect is a travesty right up there with electing Klinton as President. As for the weight issue, the M14 is only around a pound or so heavier than the heavy barreled M-16A2….and as for the mouse gun being even close to equal compared to the shotgun in terms of stopping power. :rolleyes: I don’t even consider the .308 on par with the stopping power of the shotgun for close engagements. Oh well, to each his own.
August 30, 2002, 11:55 PM
I have an old ad somewhere for the Knight's Armament Company "Master Key S" system. Mounted a cut-down 870 under a 16" AR barrel. The intended purpose, according to the magazine, was as a breaching weapon. Load the 870 with TKOs and use them on hinges or door lock, and the breacher still has a CAR-15 to use on bad guys.
Very specialized, but seems like it would be effective for the intended role. Not something to carry around day-to-day.
August 31, 2002, 02:19 AM
Agreed on the M-14s worth, and I still am not all that fond of the 16 and its various mutations. As for the weight,no probs, but I am a behemoth.
August 31, 2002, 07:42 AM
Most setups that I have seen (from my time with the Selous Scouts and the SEELS, yeah...thats it) are used with frangible ammo for breeching doors. Also, IIRC, the AR was not built to handle having another high-recoil firearm bolted to it, and eventually the rear anchor point (pivot pin?) will begin to develop serious problems. Dunno if thats true or not.
It does look cool, but beyond that, I fail to see the point. Its not like I'm going to be rolling around with my AR/870 combo gun and, suddenly ebing involved in a CQB confrontation, I'm going to transition from strong-hand-on-AR-pistolgrip to strong-hand-on-AR-magazine-and-fumbling-for-870-trigger. :rolleyes:
Also, sounds like a nice way to add more (unbalanced) weight to a mousegun.
August 31, 2002, 08:37 PM
and as for the mouse gun being even close to equal compared to the shotgun in terms of stopping power.
An ar-15 is just as effective a weapon at close range as a shotgun is. the Ar has quicker follow up shots, faster reloading and greater range, while the shotgun has multiple projectiles, lighter weight, and versitility. They're different, but one doesn't give much up to the other in CQB.
the shotgun loaded with slug is an effective big and nasty thing stopper, but that's not really part of the situation, since you'd not encounter something like that in the areas in which this system would be used, there's no point in including that.
actually, I'm fairly certain that a 9 pellet buckshot load out of an 8 inch barrelled shotgun would be no great shakes as a man stopper, and breeching rounds aren't very effective in that department, either.
An m-16 is an awfully good close up weapon system, and with an ACOG scope on it, it comes within a stone's throw of being as good as the m-14 as a weapon system. (I don't want to hear about how the m-16 is anemic and underpowered, or how i'm speaking heresy, I've owned and used both.)
If i had a choice between an ubershort barrelled 870 and an ar, I'd pick the ar. in fact, if i had a choice between an AR and any shotgun, i'd pick the AR. it's got some definite advantages over a shotgun as a fighting weapon.
This isn't to say that the AR is an uberweapon or that shotguns aren't great at what they do, but I think a shotgun isn't enough better to be worth messing with as an add on weapon.
August 31, 2002, 10:03 PM
"An ar-15 is just as effective a weapon at close range as a shotgun is."
....it is pointless to get some sense into the delusional!!
Anyone that would choose a mouse gun over any shotgun is just plain irrational! FMJ AR bullets that have half the energy of a buckshot or slug round can in no way even hope to match the devastation that buckshot or slugs can render onto flesh. Not only because they start out with less energy, but their fmj design makes less of their energy impact the target as they zip right through! I agree that the fast follow up shots are the ARs greatest asset, however, I have heard too many horror stories (http://www.battlerifles.com/viewtopic.php?t=84&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=matel&start=0 )
about the ARs lack of stopping power, not to mention it's terrible reliability under adverse conditions to trust it in combat. Most people that shoot ARs, are shooting at the range with a well-cleaned and maintained weapon under pristine conditions. In combat, where the environment is anything but it is a much different story. Yes the AR-15 has been improved over the years to make it more reliable, but there is only so much that can be done on the design!
Sure fast follow up shots are nice, but I only aim on shooting the BG once. And the shotgun can follow up as fast as I can bring it to bear on another target, that is as fast as one can need in combat! If there are more than a half dozen BGs and you’re on your own, you face a problem much larger than which small arm you’re using.
And even after all the upgrades and modifications, it seems as if even the soldiers in Afganistan today are having second thoughts about their M-4s.
“The Army collected comments from U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan on smallarms performance. The following report, from Stars and Stripes, summarizes those comments. Some of those comments might, perhaps, be of practical benefit to you AR-15 shooters.
The M-4 carbine, the newest M-16 variant, was described as presenting field maintenance problems:
"...soldiers routinely reported having to purchase their own weapons cleaning kit items (in many cases asking friends and family to send them from home). Thirty-five percent of soldiers surveyed added barber brushes and 24 percent added dental picks to the cleaning kits issued to suport the M-4 carbine...
"While 89 percent of soldiers polled said they had 'confidence' in the M-4 carbine, only 77 percent felt it was reliable.
"'If I did not have so many oopportunities to clean [my M-4] I'm not sure how reliable it would have been,' one soldier commented."
A "sizable percentage" of M-4 users described themselves as either "unhappy with the weapon, or toting it without much thought one way or another."”
“I live next to Hunter Airfield which is one of the major bases for the airborne rangers. I recentlly gor a chance to talk to a ranger who is now stateside. To make a long story short he was not to thrilled about the combat performance of the m-4. He said that they have had to shoot ragheads four and five times to put them down-with a rifle! That to me is being issued a liability not a weapon”
August 31, 2002, 11:40 PM
It's pretty well known that the Ar has limited terminal effectiveness past 200 yards in the 20 inch barrel with m193 or m855 ammunition (this has already been rehashed several times in other threads)
200+yards is not CQB ranges. a .223 at fifteen feet has plenty of residual energy to fragment and do what it's supposed to.
My brother reports from his recent deployment that his m-16 had no problems whatsever (it being a 20 incher). every year at the WC 3gun match, the vast majority of the shooters show up with AR type weapons, and the AR is a consistant winner (if it was as unreliable as you claim, it wouldn't be.
I'd appreciate not being called delusional. I've taken the time to Share my thoughts on the matter (ones that are the result of many hours of careful study and deliberation) and I will not have something that i decided to share like that treated in such a manner.
September 2, 2002, 02:41 PM
It's a perfectly vialble and deadly weapon system. You have to understand, you'll win any battle on cool points alone. Just stand there and snear and everyone will run.
September 2, 2002, 06:14 PM
I'll take one or the other, but not a combination of both. In a stressful situation I don't want to have to think to myself "should I use the buckshot or the rifle?" I just want to squeeze.
Both are effective, both are good. I can't see the point of the combo. JMHO
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.