View Single Post
Old December 4, 2008, 05:46 AM   #31
handlerer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 5, 2007
Location: Billings,MT
Posts: 277
I remember vividly being afflicted with the m-16 in '71, while in basic training at Fort Polk, LA. Our instructors appologized to us for being burdened with this"weapon". In every instance where we were training in simulated combat conditions, having to low crawl through the sand and mud and then upon reaching our objective, being required to fire live rounds, this"weapon" would discharge once and jam. This wasn't just my "weapon", but every soldier involved in this training had the same experience. If it wasn't for it not being reliable, it was a fun toy. I will say it is more accurate than my mini-14, but I can count on the Mini-14 to fire everytime I pull the trigger. I first fired the M-16 when I was about 12. My father, was career military and did 3 tours in Viet Nam, the first in '64. He, having the keys to the arms room would bring home service weapons on the weekends and we would go out to the bivoac area, near PoInt Magu and waste government ammo. I thought then that the M-16 was a hoot to shoot. My father said that was true, but as far as a combat arm this was a criminal POS! My father was KIA in '67, on his third tour in Viet Nam. This "weapon" was selected by a committee that was clueless about what was really required of a combat arm. I think they should all be placed in front of a firing squad equiped with M-16's. The odds of survival would be excellent, though. As long as this piece was clean and no foreign material had invaded the action, it was a fun rifle to play with. I leaned to shoot it quite well, qualifying expert. More important than accuracy or rate of fire though is reliability. I wonder if my father would still be alive today if he were better armed.
handlerer is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04342 seconds with 7 queries