M16A2 horror Story thread

[Conformer]

Here this is intresting to say the least. http://www.gunsnet.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=40720

[Jake 98c/11b]

I must admit I am not sure of the objectivity of a review of the AR series on AK47.net but maybe thats just me.

There are some definate embellishments for sake of story here if you ask me. I am a school trained armorer for the Army, it is not my regular duty but I was lucky enough to go to the course. I can also tell you that basic training units are looked at hard by lots of people and I wouldn't expect this kind of quality (lack of) in any branch of service. I am disappointed in the instruction soldiers receive in basic, the average Drill is far from being a subject matter expert when it comes to marksmanship but I have never seen things this bad. It sounds like someone took every horror story and ran them together for this one.

There are problems but this doesn't seem realistic.

[Harley Nolden]

I don't know where this young man took his basic training, but I can guess not at Ft. Benning GA. I worked there as a Sr. Gunsmith in Machine Shop #3, 8 yrears, and after each training cycle the guns were repaired/rebuilt and in many cases refinished.

Not only that, we had gunsmiths on each range during firing. They had large vans, with parts and all the tools needed to overhaul a complete weapon right there on the range, if need be.

It sounds to me like this PVT is wanting to find an ans. for his inability to perform as required. The part about the dust cover busted my button. Of course if the guns is stamped on the butt, the cover will open, and it will open upon firing if closed, and of course some dust will get into the gun. The cover is designed to keep out dust, but what about combat conditions? When I carried one the dust cover, to me, was of little importance in a fire fight, before or after. I have to agree, that I believe this young man took all "the bad", he had ever heard about about this rifle and put it all together on one "incomplete story."

I believe he needs to have his "crainial structure sugically removed from his sphinkter muscle" and get on with the mission at hand.

HJN

[Jake 98c/11b]

Harry, at least his ears are warm.

[C.R.Sam]

Some can make an anvil fail.

Sam

[4V50 Gary]

Harley, I didn't realize the eloquence with which you write. ;)

[songdog_sniper]

sounds to me like some Pvt couldn't figure out how to make his wepaon work. i never ever had the problems that he discussed in basic or otherwise. now granted i am from the world of the USMC. but we still should have recieved the same wepaons the army did. i don't know as i was just a lowly E.O.D. man. and spent most of my time on the range with an old winchester model 70 i beged, borrowed and wish i could have stolen from the armory.

[Jake 98c/11b]

Harley, sorry I butchered your name, had an algebra teacher named Harry Nolen and I must have screwed that up.

Sorry again.

[Harley Nolden]

Jake:
No offense taken. I have been called worse Laugh out Loud (LoL):D

HJN

[STLRN]

Honestly sounds like he went to BCT at Fort Sill, the weapons in the weapons pool for trainees there are in very bad shape.

[Handy]

This sounds alot like my father's account of Air Force basic in the '60's. After he was done with basic and rifles that fell apart while firing, he was put on a detail to clean and cut up a bunch of new M1's still in the grease.

[eej]

Sounds like the truth to me.....hell even the rifles at my duty station were ****. I had one of the 'chrome plated' rifles while in basic. It would double feed every 3-5 rounds. The magazines were crap too. It never liked blanks...it would turn into a single shot m16a1 when you put blanks in it. When they finally issued me a different one m16a2 the reciever broke where the rear takedown pin is held by the spring and retainer. Nothing like your weapon falling apart on you while firing. Or the handguards coming off while doing 3-5 sec rushes. Do you people really think that every dumbass private takes care not to damage the bore when cleaning these things?! I have seen them put under hot showers, cleaning rods/brushes put on drills and being sent into the chambers and barrels. Not to mention the one that shoves the cleaning rod with brush into the bore and decides to pull it out while it's half way there. And we all know that the firing pins are great for getting all that carbon out of the bolt carrier. I have fired hundreds of rounds thru them until the barrels glowed. (It's easier to shoot up all the ammo than to turn it in). I served 5 years active duty and i will never own or better yet carry one in combat if i had a say in it.

I just have a problem having my life depending on a 1/8 inch gastube.

[Hkmp5sd]

Hey, my M16A1 is not a single shot!:) And it is also not a 3-shot. One trigger pull = 1 to 30 rounds.

[Dannyboy]

I would have to disagree with you STLRN. I also went to Basic and AIT at Ft. Sill and not once did I ever have a mechanical problem with my A1. The magazines, however, were crap and caused all kinds of problems.

[STLRN]

Danny when did you go to Fort Swill? If you were issued an A1 it was a long time ago and I left there last summer.

[fix]

Personally, I think the weapons issued in Recruit Training should be somewhat unreliable. I had a total POS in boot camp. Immediate action drills became second nature. After leaving Parris Island, Marines all head for ITB,SOI,MCT, whatever they're calling it this week. When my company arrived and hit the field for a live fire excercise, it became painfully obvious that Lady Luck had played a sick joke on everyone. Those who went through boot camp with junk lucked out and got the good ones. Those who had decent weapons in boot camp (there are no "good ones") had drawn all the crappy rifles. It was hillarious watching these guys fumble around but it drove home a very important point for me. The inconvenience of dealing with a crappy rifle in boot camp might very well save my life one day.

Didn't see too many bad rifles in the fleet. Never had a problem with one after training, but I never really worried about it either. I knew I could deal with it if I had to.

[Zorro]

I have never shot a M-16/AR-15 that could go much past 20 Rounds without jamming up.

AK-47s have never jammed on me.

The M-16 has created LOTS of dead GIs.

Makes a lousy club after it jams too.

[dZ]

gee i wonder if AK47.net & AR15.com are still offline

:)

what i really like about the AK is that you can use one as a walk behind plow for spring planting and then unhitch the mule and shoot whitetailed deer with it as they investigate the freshly tilled earth, i usually wait until the deer come within 300 yards. Those ARs are just suitable for shooting poodles and i have no idea why they are the longest issued US rifle design cause they always jam everytime. They are light to carry thats why i use one to buttstoke the mule when i am out plowing.

;)

[Modifiedbrowning]

dZ, LOL:D :D

[Foxy]

Ironically, the only real AK-47 I've shot (automatic one!) jammed (but then again, so did a USP that I shot less than 15 rounds through - maybe I am bad luck).

My horror story with a AR-15? I was at a gunshow, and saw an AR-15 for less than $600. "Sweet!" thought I, since I am a poor college student living on Easy Mac and Ramen. It was an ASA one. I hefted it, liked what I saw, then tried to flip the safety to fire. It didn't snap - it sort of swung lazily around. "Hmm," thought I. I didn't check it thoroughly, but this safety lever just sort of swung in a 360 degree circle with just a bit of thumb pressure. I didn't think that was too great.

[Rakekniven]

The A2 I had in USMC basic was an outstanding rifle. Even after I had drug it through wet sand with the dust cover open, it still cycled fine, and that was on blanks.

[355sigfan]

I have a Car 15 That I use as a patrol rifle it has served me well in alll kinds of harsh conditions. The AR15 that I have seen fail have been in the hands of idiots that did not know how to maintain them. Most either over oiled them or did not clean them at all. I have owned 3 AK's and they were ok in the reliability department. They could go farther without a cleaning than an AR but if the AR was maintained the AK's had no edge. As to the accuracy the AK sucks. Reliability means nothiing if you can't hit your target.
PAT

[Ewok_Guy]

As to the accuracy the AK sucks.
I wouldn't be so hasty. This 3-shot group was printed at 100 yards with a stock Norinco Mak-90 sporter.
Ammo used was Lapua 123 gr. FMJ.
Aks will perform quite well if you use them correctly and use the right ammo.

[Jake 98c/11b]

How much is the Lapua and where do you find it. Isn't it usually rather expensive?

[Ewok_Guy]

My local gun shop carries it.
They charge $6.50 per 30. But its rather high quality brass.
Can be reloaded dozens of times.. or so the books say..

[Quartus]

Zorro, I've put many a thousand rounds through an M-16, often under very abusive conditions, and I would bet my life on one.

Now, if you are talking about the many kit guns that are out there, well, I can't say that I would depend on one either. Amateur armorers putting together a part from here and a part from there don't inspire a lot of confidence in me.


As for depending on a 1/8" gas tube.... Check the brake lines in a Forumula One car. They look an awful lot like a 1/8" gas tube.

[DonP]

Having humped an A-1 for seven months before I got transferred to a new assignment at HQ USARV, I never had a malfunction and put way too many rounds through it.

We had the A-1's with chromed bores and chambers and even basic maintenance kept them humming right along. But then again we lived with the fear of G-- and Sergeant Major Cato looking over our shoulder and making a third of us pull preventative maintenance at every break.

I've fired a full auto AK on a number of occasions and yes they are tough, and probably very reliable in the field. They were designed for use by "peasant soldiers" to use and maintain. (nothing implied about current AK owners of course, just a fact from Sgt Kalishnikov).

The early 60's M-16's weren't introduced properly and cleaning and chrome plating made a huge difference. I'm really getting tired of hearing about the hundreds of GI's that died with cleaning rods in their hands trying to clear their A-1 and A-2. They are alkways told by someone "who's uncle told him" or "his best friends father swore to the fact" etc.. They must be the ones that weren't killed by that guy with the hook in lovers lane.

How many VC and NVA died because their AK's jammed on them? Anyone have that statistic? I didn't think so.

Just my opinion.

Don P.

[eej]

Yeah the brake lines on a formula1 car might look like 1/8 gas tube but there is fluid in them all the time. It doesn't have gases, carbon and who knows what other crap going thru them. :rolleyes:

Ever seen a bent gas tube? I have, right after the rifle fell off a rock and the handguards popped off.

So in combat if you carry an M16 and you lose your cleaning kit you're pretty much dead is that what you guys are saying?:p


I can see it now:

BAM BAM POW POW BOOM!!! OH ****!!! WHERE'S MY PIPE CLEANERS!!???:p :p :eek: :eek:

[juliet charley]

As to the accuracy the AK sucks. Reliability means nothiing if you can't hit your target.
I can't really speak for the accuracy of the AK, but the accuracy of the M16s I shot for twenty plus years in the Air Force was nothing to write home about.

Somehow, I think I would feel a lot more comfortable with a rifle that worked and shot "minute of deer" (or at least 20 rounds in a human torso at hundred yards) than one that didn't work and shot MOA. (Though in all fairness, I only shot one M16 that had any serious reliability problems, and I'm willing to concede it was either a lemon and/or seriously abused in a past life--and it was really amusing to watch the SAMTU guys turn purple.)

[Zorro]

All my M-16/AR-15 experience is with the rifles I was issued in the US Military.

Never had one out of about 20 or so rifles that was trustworthy.

If it HAS TO BE BABIED it is NOT SUITABLE FOR MILITARY USE!

Fire 20 rounds and clean it like hell IS NOT REALISTIC.

It is amazing how it is always the cleaners fault when a M-16 fails never the design.

M-16 the lemon of the Assault Rifles.

[Redlg155]

If you were issued an A1 it was a long time ago and I left there last summer.

I went to BT/AIT in 87. Actually it was a combined class. One morning you woke up and the drill SGT told you that you were now in AIT. Funny how the recruiter neglected to tell me Basic was going to last 13 weeks.:rolleyes: Anyway..we had A1's.

I will say that the M16's are pretty durable when it comes to throwing them around. When it was time to move we all threw our weapons into one big pile on the floor of the Howitzer and climbed in right after them. We abused them pretty bad. Until Iraq hit, then we loved our babies.:D

As for reliability, they worked great in the hot humid climate of Ft. Stewart GA. The powdery grit sand in Iraq was a different story. It definitely gave us troubles. I don't know what the difference was, but at the National Training Center in Cali we didn't experience the same troubles as we had in Iraq. But then we didn't live in the dustbowl for six months either.

Good Shooting
RED

[Quartus]

So in combat if you carry an M16 and you lose your cleaning kit you're pretty much dead is that what you guys are saying?

I didn't hear anyone saying that. And that's not consistent with field experience. Gimme a break - if the 16 were that fragile do you think the Army and Marine Corp would still want it after almost 40 YEARS OF SERVICE IN ALL MANNER OF COMBAT CONDITIONS??????

As for accuracy, unless the thing has been badly abused by some incomptent, a box stock Colt 16 will shoot pretty close to MOA. RELIABLY.


Some of you need to quit listening to the gun store commandos. These are the same idiots that will tell you the .45 kicks like a mule and is horribly inaccurate. Yeah, like the 16, there are a bunch sitting in armories that have been badly abused and are just flat worn out. They don't shoot well.

Which has about as much to do with the design's intrinsic reliablity and accuracy as a beat up and abused old Chevy's performance has to do with IT'S design.


:rolleyes:

[355sigfan]

Zorro

The M16 is the yard stick by which all other assault rifles are judged. Its an excellent design. There are some better but not many. The only ones I can think of is the Sig 550>
PAT

[STLRN]

Redleg
Got to agree with you on your assessment, the only time I saw M16 have a lot of problems was when out with the FAOBC students at Fort Sill, those weapons were crap, but even worse than the weapons were the magazines, the biggest fly in the ointment are the magazines. One of the MCLL from SWA was that if the feed lips of the magazines are modified the reliability in sandy conditions increased. Also we seemed to have a few problems with ours when we got in country, but we cleaned them in MOGAS and dry lubed them and the problems went away.

But than again at the training weapons pool I saw some really strange maintenance techniques being taught by some of the Drill Sgts. After seeing that I understood why the weapons and magazines were screwed up. Apparently some of them think it is acceptable to use crocus cloth and CLP on the bolt and carrier or a leatherman in an ice pick fashion.

[juliet charley]

The M16 is the yard stick by which all other assault rifles are judged. Its an excellent design.
Someone show 355sigfan how to use the selector switch.

Your probably wrong on both counts. If there is a "yardstick" it is probably unfortunately been the AK-47, and the design left a good bit to desire though in its current incarnation (A2) it is a tremendous improvement over the original M16 of the 60s. Unfortunately, changing the rifling and ammunition to increase accuacy might have reduced its anti-personnel effectiveness--it seems to be making nice, stable 5.56 mm holes in and nice, stable 5.56 mm holes versus what it used to do with the old round (tumbling around and making really nasty wounds).

[STLRN]

Juliet
If you cannot put 28 out of 28 into a torso at 100 yards with range conditions with either weapon, its not the rifle its the operator.

[Quartus]

Someone show 355sigfan how to use the selector switch.


No problem. He's just using the three round burst mode! :D

[Ewok_Guy]

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/rotfl.gif

[juliet charley]

STLRN -

I know. They are both accurate enough for their intended purpose. I would probably even give the accuracy edge to the M16, but probably the reliability edge to the AK and variants.

[Quartus]

some of them think it is acceptable to use crocus cloth and CLP on the bolt and carrier or a leatherman in an ice pick fashion.


:eek:


Obviously a design flaw. :rolleyes:

[Zorro]

There is a world of difference between shooting a new highly tuned and babied AR-15 TARGET rifle on the weekends and using the GI issued REAL THING!

So how long does a M-16 last? maybe a year?

Maybe 5 reloads of a magazine and then it is shot?

Plenty of Military rifles and handguns out there that are WAY more reliable that have 100 Years of use and age on them!

So what excuse does that a 30 year old M-16 have for sucking harder than a Hurricane?

Give me a M1! pretty damn sure it will shoot the second round when I need it too!

[STLRN]

Zorro
You said an M16 almost got you killed, when was that?

[mini14jac]

It strikes me as funny how the guy in the "horror story" begins by talking about how the guns were so worn that there was no finish left on them. They looked like they were chrome plated, and had small cracks in the receiver.

Then he talks about what a crappy design it is.
Give me a break!
I would love to see an AK that had been abused by thousands of soldiers, until the finish was worn off, and the receiver was cracked, (if an AK would last that long), and then see how reliable it was.

The fact that the guns would still fire at all in the condition that he described is pretty amazing.

My take:
I can buy an AR that is basically the same gun that is issued to the military. Same tolerances, same heat-treated parts, etc.
If I by an AK, I have to buy one that was made in a factory were people earn $5 a week, (if paid at all), with unknown quality control. I can't buy a mil-spec. AK.
I had a Romanian AK. Fun to shoot.
I still have Bushmaster. If I had to pick something to bet my life on, it would be a Bushmaster, Colt, Armalite, Remington, Winchester, etc.
Not "made in China" crudely stamped in the metal.

AK vs. AR, 9mm vs. .45, pump vs. bolt, revolver vs. semi-auto, Ginger vs. Mary Ann, - man, is this a great country or what?
:cool:

[Blue Duck357]

Had an m-16A1 issued in basic in 87 at Fort Dix. I Don't care if God, Gaston Glock and John Browning join this thread and proclaim it to be a good design. I'd never mess with one again.

[Quartus]

So how long does a M-16 last? maybe a year? Maybe 5 reloads of a magazine and then it is shot?


Where did you get that silly idea? How about many tens of thousands of rounds, and then some? Years aren't relevant, except that more years mean more incompetent "cleaning" by idiots in uniforms.

And if you can show me someone who had a handguard fall off because he dropped it, I'll show you someone who doesn't have enought strength in his fingers to properly re-install a handguard. That or he's just plain stupid. Have you ever looked at how the handguard is secured? You'd have to break the thing in two to get it off without retracting the lower ring.

[juliet charley]

I think what some of the "newbies" (age-wise) might have forgotten (or never known) was that when the M16 first came out, it was a piece of junk. The product you see now has been through is on it's second "Mark" number and other small refinements. (I admit that I fall in the school that thinks, as a battel rifle, the design could have been better.)

[fix]

Years aren't relevant, except that more years mean more incompetent "cleaning" by idiots in uniforms.

I don't know where you got that idea from, but our armorer was a royal pain in the ass. Our weapons had to be spotless or he wouldn't let us check them back in. As to the rest of your comments...I'm with you all the way. I watched Marine Drill Instructors launch M16s down the length of the squad bay like javelins. The next day, most of those recruits qualified expert on the old KD range.

[Alexis Machine]

"I think what some of the "newbies" (age-wise) might have forgotten (or never known) was that when the M16 first came out, it was a piece of junk. "

I think you don't know what you are talking about. When the M16 was introduced, it was a great weapon. IT WAS BALL AMMO that caused problems, not the design.

SPECFOR field tested the AR15 in VN before the into of the XM16, and it performed superbly.

[juliet charley]

No, Alexis, there were problems with it when it was first introduced for general usage in Vietnam. I was shooting them back then.

[STLRN]

JC
The orginal M16 was used in all the battles in the Ia Drang, it seemed not to have any detractors. When the powder was changed all the problems seemed to crop up.

[Alexis Machine]

If you had problems with the M16, it's because:

A) You didn't clean it

B) You were using the wrong ammo.

C) You abused it.

The Army screwed up the M16, by not issuing cleaning kits, and by changing the ammo propellent from stick to ball.

[fix]

IMHO...

The Army screwed up the M16 by sending it directly into combat. It should have been issued to those in training first. Let them abuse it and work out some of the quirks...then give it to the sluggers on the front lines. My understanding is that it was basically tossed into the fire without an awful lot of realistic testing by regular troops. I may be wrong here, I wasn't even alive at the time.

[juliet charley]

Too many years ago. Didn't they also go in and chrome chambers (or something) as well? I do know the M16 did not get off to a good start. My experience was really limited with them at the time (mostly M14s in Panama), but the few I had experience with were really problems, but it may have been the old ammunition, but they were clean--I'm talking about problems on the first or second magazine (but it was certainly before they started placing a lot of emphasis on frequent cleaning during actual usage). I suppose it's all water on the bridge now.

[Blue Duck357]

If you had problems with the M16, it's because:

A) You didn't clean it

B) You were using the wrong ammo.

C) You abused it.

Perhaps the most utterly arrogant and baseless comment I've ever read on this board.

[juliet charley]

Amen

[STLRN]

With slight modification is it pretty true though.

C. should be changed to someone, maynot be the person using it now, but someone.

add D. Magazine that should have been destroyed long ago, but is still being used

[Alexis Machine]

Perhaps the most utterly arrogant and baseless comment I've ever read on this board.

And this was the worst attempt at diverting attention from the facts with a personal attack I've read on this board. FOAD.

Please explain how it is arrogant. Do you know what arrogant means?

Baseless. Heh. Perhaps you should read a little.

The M16/AR15 Rifle (A Shooter's and Collector's Guide)
by Joe Poyer

The M16 Controversies : Military Organizations and Weapons Acquisition
by Thomas L. McNaugher

History and Development of the M16 Rifle and Its Cartridge
by David R. Hughes

Black Rifle : M16 Retrospective
by R. Blake Stevens

All these authors explain throughly my succinct and very accurate statement.

Read. Learn. Don't be a jackass.


PS, mags are fine if you don't (C) abuse them.

[fix]

I don't really have a dog in this fight, so I could care less. I like the AR design, but I don't like it enough to defend it as vehemently as you. But, Alexis, I have to know something. How do you define "abuse"? In particular, the reference to the magazines. Speaking from personal experience under real field conditions, the M16 is pretty reliable. The magazines however, are total garbage. See, folks in the military have to carry them in pouches on web gear. Sometimes the said pouches come between the ground and said folks in the military. Sometimes the said folks in the military are sporting 60lb packs, adding to the weight. Sometimes the said folks in the military actually have to negotiate obstacles of one type or another with a magazine inserted in the rifle. Don't get me wrong, for the most part I'm taking your side on this...but the magazines are not up to snuff.

[Blue Duck357]

AM,

Arrogant: Because you have stated that if "you" had any problems with an M-16 it was because "you" either abused it didn't clean it or didn't feed it right ammo. It's the height of arrogance to assume that all of the people (and there are many) who have had problems with the M-16 design did so just because they don't have access to your knowledge of the subject.

Baseless: prove to me that every problem anywhere at anytime with the M-16 was caused solely by the three things you mentioned as you claim. If you can't prove it, that makes it a baseless assumption.

I stand by my comments.

[juliet charley]

The operational debut of the M16 appeared to go quite well when the rifle was first issued to troops in the battle in the Ia Drang Valley of Viet Nam in early November, 1965. Lieutenant Colonel, later Lieutenant General, Harold G. Moore Junior reported "brave soldiers and the M16 brought" the allied victory. But as the number of M16s "in country" increased, so did the reports of their failure in combat. In May, 1967, one Marine wrote home about it:

"I just got your letter today aboard ship. We've been on an operation ever since the 21 st of last month. I can just see the papers back home now-Enemy casualties heavy, Marine casualties light. Let me give you some statistics and you decide if they were light. We left with close to 1400 men in our battalion and came back with half. We left with 250 men in our company and came back with 107. We left with 72 men in our platoon and came back with 19. I knew I was pressing my luck. They finally got me. It wasn't bad though, I just caught a little shrapnel. I wish I could say the same for all my buddies.

...believe it or not, you know what killed most of us? Our own rifle. Before we left Okinawa, [we] were all issued this new rifle, the M16. Practically everyone of our dead was found with his rifle torn down next to him where he had been trying to fix it. There was a newspaperwoman with us photographing all this and the Pentagon found out about it and won't let her publish the pictures. They say that they don't want to get the American people upset. Isn't that a laugh?"

The pictures Catherine Leroy took were published in Paris Match magazine, causing an uproar.

Rememeber, the M16 was replaced after only three years (ca. 1967).

[Quartus]

I don't know where you got that idea from, but our armorer was a royal pain in the ass. Our weapons had to be spotless or he wouldn't let us check them back in.


True, fix. Certainly not ALL who handled them were idiots. I had a great armorer, too. But you'd agree that MANY were, I'm sure, and weapons do get rotated. So given enough years, it's likely that a given weapon has been cleaned by more idiots than a new one.

But actually, overcleaning is a big problem in the service. White glove inspections have damaged a lot of weapons, as GIs who know nothing but what they were taught take all manner of strange implements to the bolt, receiver, chamber, etc. in an effort to make sure that weapon passes inspection. I'd bet, in peacetime, more bores have been cleaned out than shot out.


It's the height of arrogance to assume that all of the people (and there are many) who have had problems with the M-16 design did so just because they don't have access to your knowledge of the subject.

So what special knowledge do you need to keep a weapon basically clean and look for bent mag lips?

That's all a 16 needs to keep on ticking, mag after mag.

At Ft. Lewis one sunny afternoon I ran about 30 mags (20 rounders) through a service rifle with nary a hiccup. Didn't clean it or lube it AT ALL during that session. Not too many troops on a battlefield have access to that many mags full of ammo. And, knowing who that rifle was issued to, I doubt it was clean when we started firing that day - we'd been in the field shooting blanks for a week. Those are notoriously dirty. Then we shot a standard qualification. Then we burned ammo rather than turning it back in. (Somebody had ordered WAAAY too much! :D )

I'm sure glad I didn't have to clean that weapon! Seems mine was secured in a rack while we burned the ammo. ;)

So, yes there were problems in the first issue. Poor training had a lot to do with it. That has nothing to do with the reliability of the design.

BTW, if gas tubes scare anyone, you'd better check to see how many highly respected assault rifles have tubes that are virtually identical to the M-16.

Just about all of them.

[Alexis Machine]

Arrogant: Because you have stated that if "you" had any problems with an M-16 it was because "you" either abused it didn't clean it or didn't feed it right ammo. It's the height of arrogance to assume that all of the people (and there are many) who have had problems with the M-16 design did so just because they don't have access to your knowledge of the subject.

"Special knowledge"? Is that a joke? Look, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to read a book, or watch a documentary on the M16 to learn the history behind the problems envolved in it's introduction. Its not arrogant to post info on a subject, thats what these boards are for. Or did you think they were for you to post your little personal attacks while contributing ZERO to the thread? The gun design works. Period.

Baseless: prove to me that every problem anywhere at anytime with the M-16 was caused solely by the three things you mentioned as you claim. If you can't prove it, that makes it a baseless assumption.

BS. I don't have to prove jack [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] to you, you want to learn something get up off your ass and make an effort.

FWIW, I'm not the worlds biggest fan of the M16. It's no better, or worse, than most other quality service rifles out there. Each has its good points and it's bad.

[Blue Duck357]

Don't get all huffy AM, you made a statement that all problems with the M-16 system could be traced to "operator error". I know many knowledgeble people (more than myself) who have had nothing but grief with 16's and want no part of them or thier direct gas impingement system. Seems no other manufacturer of assualt rifles in the last 40 years has wanted any part of it either for some odd reason.... but thats neither here nor there.

When you make the claim that the only thing that could ever go wrong with the M-16 was cleaning/abuse/wrong ammo you are attacking a broad group of knowledgle people and thier competence. I called you on it and asked for proof, deal with it.

[STLRN]

Seems no other manufacturer of assualt rifles in the last 40 years has wanted any part of it either for some odd reason
Well that is a bit wrong. The Korean K1 uses the sytem. They starting making the K1 after Colt would not extend the license to produce and sell the S Korean M16. After a short while, there were complaints from the US about patent violations and the Koreans went to the K2.

[Zorro]

If you had problems with the M16, it's because:

A) You didn't clean it
B) You were using the wrong ammo.
C) You abused it.

The following DO NOT! Fail because of the 3 things above:

M1 Garand.
M1 Carbine.
British Enfield Rifle
1927 Thompson.
BAR.
M-60.
AK-47.
AK-74.
AK-94.
G-1.
Galiel.
SKS.
M-14.
ANY Pump Shotgun!
UZI.
MP-5.
Colt 1911 IN GI ISSUE FORM.
Most any Mauser based rifle.


And about most any other gun not made by the French in the last 100 years!

The M-16 is like a Government program run wild, "Well! it only didn't work because you didn't <Insert Excuse of the week here>!

The M-16 is the definition of a bad gun!

I think the only reason that there are defenders of it is because there are people that have sunk $3000-4000 in one and are scared that they can't get anything out of the M-16 money pit if the truth becomes known.

:barf:

[Zorro]

Add just one more thing, the M-16 resembles the war on poverty.

"It only didn't work because you didn't spend enough money on it!"

Year after year for 30+ plus years "They" say "It needs more money."

The true answer is it will never work because it is the wrong answer to the problem.

I suggest adopting the A new rifle in 6MM PPC, but it won't happen because it would work, and not cost very much for continuing parts and technical support.....for say 30+ years......

Like the M-16..........

Or the B-1 Bomber.............

[Quartus]

And about most any other gun not made by the French in the last 100 years!

:D:D

I nominate that as The Funniest Line of Week!

[Jake 98c/11b]

Zorro, you mentioned the M-60 as an example of a weapon that doesn't fail from the three factors given so I must assume you have little experience with it.

I will admit that I was not a fan of the M-16 series untill I carried one for years (without a failure), I was a big proponent of the .308 cal and the M-14. In fact if I could only have one rifle it would be my M1A, having said that I will say that I have an AR and I would chose it over the M1A for combat under most circumstances.

Back to the M-60, the 60 was the worst small arms mistake the US has ever made as I see it. The gun has better than ten parts that can be inserted backwards, upside down or inverted causing the beast to not shoot, only shoot one round or not stop shooting. It has too many parts that are small and easily lost. Some have said the same about the M-16 but with only 2 small enough to be a problem (firing pin retaining pin and bolt cam pin) it is not nearly the problem. The operating rod of the 60 is prone to bending, chiping, cracking and peening. The bolt will not hold up for very long without a lug cracking and they need to be inspected regularly and stoned down too often. Several other problems have been corrected with the E3 variant but those are few and far between. Some others will say that they invented some new problems with the E3 as well. This doesn't even touch on the mean rate between failures. The M-60 will fail to function 8 times as often as the FN-MAG 58. Thankfully the 60 is being replaced with the M240G (a US built MAG 58).

I could complain about several pump shotguns as well when it comes to durability. Many of the guns you mentioned fail to make the grade today for one reason or another. No one here would be happy hauling a Thompson and a few hundred rounds around the modern battlefield. With all the modern soldier has to carry the 13+ pounds of SMG will get heavy real fast. Nothing wrong with a bolt action for sniping but who wants one for houst to house. Your comparison is not valid I'm afraid.

[STLRN]

M1 Garand.
Initial issue ones failed, hence the abandonment of the gas trap.

M1 Carbine.
Every heard of the battle of Chosen, the Carbine failed all the time there. Mine fails if feed via the wrong mag


M-60.
Jake talked about it already, the pig was a piece of crap. The E3 was almost as bad, but sucked for sustained fire.

AK-47.
I found some that failed in SWA, so they do fail. The thought they never do is more legand than fact.

AK-94.
Its an AN-94, since its never seen combat or for that matter general issue who knows

G-1.
Its a FN-FAL, they are sand sensitive and their mags are prone to failure

M-14.
The first ones issued exploded, the first ones issued to the Corps were withdrawn because inability to hit the target. It was found that the manufactures made the flash suppressor incorrectly


MP-5.
Apparently you don't know why it is no longer in Marine Corps service. It was a maintenance whore and the HK claimed it couldn't be there weapon fault for malfunctioning.

When exactly did the M16 fail you? You mentioned it almost cost you, your life. When was that or was is so much internet hype.

[Alexis Machine]

M1 Garand.
M1 Carbine.
British Enfield Rifle
1927 Thompson.
BAR.
M-60.
AK-47.
AK-74.
AK-94.
G-1.
Galiel.
SKS.
M-14.
ANY Pump Shotgun!
UZI.
MP-5.
Colt 1911 IN GI ISSUE FORM.
Most any Mauser based rifle.

With the exception of the subguns (pistol calibers...come on:rolleyes: ) All of these weigh at least 3lbs more than the M16. One of the biggest reasons the US chose it was for it's weight.

As for your claim that all of these can be abused/fired with the wrong type of ammo/run dirty, I can tell you from personal experience that ain't true.

There is a warehouse in Haifa full of Galils with stress fractured receivers. I captured many AKs of all types during DS that would not function for various reasons (the MYTH that the AK is the wonder rifle of the 20th century is simply not true), obstruct the barrel on your pump shotgun with some dirt and see what happens; others have commented on the FAL, M1 Carbine and M60. I guess we just need to start reissuing '03s, huh?

Look, all guns have strengths/weaknesses. The rifles you listed that are better at taking abuse and running dirty weigh considerably more than the M16. The M16 is capable of controlled select fire, is lighter and generally more accurate than most of those rifles listed. Will the M16 compare to the G36, FAMAS or SIG 551? Maybe, maybe not. Those rifles are very new, so yeah they should be better than the M16.

BlueDuck-

You are a liar. You never "asked for proof" in any way, you made a personal attack. You really aren't worth my time, but I will leave you with this: you claim to know many "knowledgeble people" who have had nothing but grief with 16's. I say, they are incompetent whiners who blame their inability to correctly maintain/operate the M16 on the rifle. Hows that for arrogant?
Theres only a few million soldiers out there using the M16 with success all over the world, many of them choose the M16 over other designs, the SAS for instance. But then I guess they aren't as knowledgable as your friends are, huh?

[mini14jac]

Hey, can we try to keep it clean, for pete's sake?
We all are here because of a common interest, after all.

This is America. If you want to like an AK more than an AR, I'll stand by your side and fight for that right.

Let's try to engage in intelligent debate.

I've had a couple of AKs, and one SKS over the years, and currently have a Bushmaster AR.

Please believe me, though the AR is not perfect, (it is man-made after all), neither are any of the other weapons mentioned here.

My SKS would not eject the first fired round. After hammering out several spent casings, I let a gunsmith look at it. He said the chamber was full of rust. After several trips to my shop with steel wool and sandpaper on a drill, I made it into a reliable weapon.
Then I sold it. Yes, I had to hammer on the cleaning rod to dislodge empty casings. This was with a SKS, not an AR.
This was probably around 1996.

Had a Norinco AK for a while. Didn't shoot it a whole lot, but don't remember any problems.

Got a Bushmaster AR. No problems until I tried to use a USA magazine. USA mags can be junk.
As long as I use USGI spec. mags, no problems at all.
I have shot 500+ rounds of Wolf ammo without cleaning it.
It ran like a Swiss watch the whole time.

Last year, bought a mail order Romanian AK.
Sights were crooked. I just have a small vise, on a small bench in my garage, but I was able to fix it.
The mags weigh a ton, and should be as rugged as a crowbar.
I had one that would shoot about 15 rounds, then jam?????
Filed a little metal off of one lip, then it was fine.
The gas tube takedown lever had been mangled. When I tried to straighten it, it broke. Major pain, but I replaced it.
When I sold it, it was a reliable gun, but I had lost faith in it.

Any gun can be a lemon. So many ARs have been made, yes there are going to be some lemons. Same with any other gun.
I am guessing there are a lot of faulty AKs, SKS, M1s, etc, out there.
Get something that you like, that works good for you.
Let's not crucify each other because of what we want to shoot.

Can't we all get along?

I know, let's talk religion. :D

[mini14jac]

Oh, and one more thing....:)

Whenever a civilian (of which I am one) bad mouths an AR, whithout fail, when I question them, they are talking about a gun that was built from the cheapest available parts.

I am sure there are people that bash new guns, and some manufacturers are better than others.

Where did the idea come from, that someone who cannot put together a bicycle, can buy $400 worth of parts, and build a reliable, modern, weapon? :rolleyes:

[Ewok_Guy]

Had a Norinco AK for a while. Didn't shoot it a whole lot, but don't remember any problems.
That's not surprising, Norincos are utterly reliable rifles.

[glock glockler]

The following DO NOT! Fail because of the 3 things above

That pretty much sums up my feeling towards the M16, don't get me wrong, I think it's a great target rifle but I've heard of far too many people that have had excessive difficulties with it.

I have never even heard of reliability problems with an HK G3, that's reliability. AKs and Fals have been used the world over and have a solid reputation for reliability, is it beyond the capability of the US to develop a rifle that is reliable?

There are rifles out there like the HK G36, Sig 550, M-96, and others that are reputed to be far more reliable than the M16, can we not afford to better outfit our troops?

[fix]

Show of hands...

Who here has had REPEATED problems with their MILITARY issued M16A2 (Specifically A2) rifle under field conditions???

Specify...

Who here feels that the MILITARY issued M16A2 they were issued while IN THE MILITARY was a good weapon???


No offense to anyone, but I suspect that there are more than a few armchair critics who are simply repeating what they've heard.
Personally, I don't think the thing is the best rifle in the world...but that's different from calling it a total piece of junk. My beef is more with the cartridge than the weapon. I like AR-10s myself. But, that's another discussion/flame war entirely. Please try to remember that the A2 is a different from the A1 in several ways. Comparing the A2 to the A1 is like comparing the M14 to the M1 Garand. Ok, maybe that's a little extreme, but you get the point.

[Quartus]

The M-60 will fail to function 8 times as often as the FN-MAG 58

And that FN is a sweet beast to shoot! Love it! (The 60 is a blast, too, but I would be reluctant to bet the farm on it. But against inanimate targets with free ammo, hey, that's a fun way to pass the afternoon!)


fix, I think you summed it up. Though I can't raise my hand to your A2 question, all my experience is with Army issued A1s and Colt AR-15s. Utterly reliable in both cases. Lot's of rounds through both. (Obviously more through the Army's stuff. Hey, when ammo is free... :D ) Very few failures. And that included some real torture tests, one of which is detailed above. And my service experience was right after Nam, and probably a lot of the different rifles I handled had seen service there. Including some Harrington Richardon made under contract. Somehow that logo just didn't look as good on the side of a battle rifle.

But what exactly is the difference between the A2 and A1? I know about the sights and twist rates, and cosmetic things. Anything else?

[fix]

The M16A2, originally designated the M16A1E1, resulted from a US Marine Corps initiative to develop a rifle which, unlike the M16A1, met Marine Corps marksmanship standards. The result is a rifle which is considerably different from the M16A1, despite the M16A2's resemblance to the earlier weapon. The M16A2 was Type Classified in 1982 and designated Standard A in November 1983. First deliveries officially began in March 1984. The US Army began re-equipping with the M16A2 the following year.

The primary changes to the M16A2 compared to its predecessor are as follows:

The M16A2 flash suppressor also functions as a muzzle brake. The bottom opening has been eliminated to reduce muzzle rise and prevent dust being kicked up when the rifle is fired from the prone position.

The M16A2 barrel is heavier with a faster 1 turn in 177.8 mm (7 in) to stabilize the heavier M855/SS109 bullet. This feature proved controversial as this twist will not stabilise older ammunition using a lighter bullet. The barrel is heavier only forward of the front sight. Under the handguard the barrel retains the profile of the M16A1, ostensibly to allow the fitting of the M203 grenade launcher.

The M16A2 front sight is now a square post.

M16A2 handguards are identical and interchangeable, being much stronger than those of the M16A1. They also permit improved heat dissipation over the older handguard halves. The ring at the rear of the handguard which retains the handguard halves has been canted to provide a better grip.

The upper receiver of the M16A2 features a case deflector behind the ejector port to prevent ejected cartridge cases from flying into the face of left-handed shooters, while the front attachment point to the lower receiver has been strengthened.

The M16A2 rearsight has been completely redesigned to be fully adjustable for windage and elevation out to a range of 800 m. A flip-up battle aperture is provided for use out to a range of 250 m.

The M16A2 forward assist has been simplified for ease of manufacture. The pistol grip is of stronger nylon and has a distinctive finger `swell'. The firing mode no longer includes a fully automatic option on US military M16A2s. The M16A2 uses a three-round burst mode in place of fully automatic fire.

The M16A2 stock, like the pistol grip, is made from an improved tough nylon. It is foam filled and claimed to be 10 to 12 times stronger than the M16A1 stock. It is also 159 mm longer than the earlier stock.

The M16A2 butt-plate is deeply chequered and squared while the trap for the internal stowage compartment is now easier to open.

These are the "design" changes alone and do not reflect ammo changes, metallurgy advances, and troop training changes that have also added to the effectiveness of the design.

[Brian Busch]

I think they also added the mag release fence as well with the A2.

While in the service, I was issued both the M16A1 and the M14. Bothe rifles performed perfectly. Not to toot my own horn or anything, but I've shot just about everything out there in regards to service weapons, and the M16 was as good as any other.

[Quartus]

So, what are you, fix, a walking M-16 encyclopedia?

:D

That's a GOOD thing!


Thanks for the answer. Obviously, the changes didn't affect the basic operating system, which is where the complaint lies. And boy, does it LIE!

I'm not sure what I think of the new rifling twist. I didn't see anything wrong with the A1 for combat accuracy. I consistently shot Expert, including bringing down the 300 meter targets with regularity. Those who say a combat rifle needs to hit at 1000 yards just aren't living in the real world. It's pretty rare to even get an opportuinigy at that range, and very few soldiers can hit anything at that distance, even with a scoped sniper rifle.

[swampgator]

Those who say a combat rifle needs to hit at 1000 yards just aren't living in the real world. It's pretty rare to even get an opportuinigy at that range, and very few soldiers can hit anything at that distance, even with a scoped sniper rifle.

AMEN!

Considering that with the exception of Desert Storm most of the conflicts the US has been involved since Vietnam have been urban in nature, the abililty of 1000 yd shots from individual riflemen with service rifle is completely an outdated concept.

Not that I'm promoting lack of long range training, but anything over 300 yds is a waste. Almost no rifleman currently in the services will, in all probability ever shoot at anyone at anything farther than that.

My experience:
FN M-16 Ser/7051XXX was a stellar performer the whole time I had her. The only problem I ever had was operator read: ME induced. Cleaned prior to qualification and did not properly lubricate the weapon.

[Zorro]

STLRN in response to your questions.........

1990s in Northern Iraq and Southern Turkey.

First time Zaquo Iraq.

Second time Gazintep on the Turkish side by Turkish troops.

As of 1998 when I got out the military M-16 that you would REALLY be issued was a piece of crap.

Unless there has been some magic dust from God, or Santa Claus spinkled upon them they are still the same 4 years later.

You won't get more details because I still work for the US military AND my TS is up for re-investigation this year and things have changed since 11 Sep 01.

[Art Eatman]

Y'all go take a Valium while I pontificate--albeit briefly.

All I know about M-16 problems is from what I've read (credible sources). Mostly, it concerned the ammo.

The original design called for it to "run" with a 900 rounds/minute rate. This all worked out well with IMR powder.

Comes then the Olin Corporation, lobbying the Pentagon to let them partake of the patriotic goodies and provide ammo. They got a contract. Used Ball powder. 1,100 rounds/minute, and not as clean a burn as IMR.

Ya'll can figure it out from there as well as I can. I won't say this is the absolute Biblical "way it was", but I've never seen anything contradictory.

Seems to me that most any full-auto critter has some rate of fire at which the system works properly. Mess with it and you create problems. For the M-16, then, the higher rate of fire with a dirtier powder meant more grunge around the bolt face and in the chamber. This gives sticky cartridges, whether loading or ejecting. To me, this seems explanatory for the various horror stories--and the forward assist (among other things).

FWIW, Art

[STLRN]

Zorro
Please say you were an 18A or something other than a 18B, since what you posted about weapons (exlcuding your dislike of the M16s since that is a subjective evaluation) is so off.

[FireForged]

355 said: < Reliability means nothiing if you can't hit your target >.



I feel that the reverse is probably more important. If I miss a target I can shoot again. If my rifle does not work, its a club.


AK system rifles are probably the most reliable weapons on the planet but I have never found any quality M16/AR15 type rifle to be a jam-0-matic. I dont know what happened to the m16's in viet nam and I dont think it matters for the purpose of current production comparison. I own a Bushmaster AR with 5000K rounds fired throught it. It has jammed 2 twice, both times it was a cheapo mag issue.

[Quartus]

Art, I've punched out a lot of full auto rounds from a 16, and I never saw 900 or 1100 rounds per minute. 600-700 is more like it. And, yes, you can tell the difference. Shoot an M-60, a grease gun (M-3), a 16, and a Mac-11, and you'll immediately know the difference in cyclic rate.



As of 1998 when I got out the military M-16 that you would REALLY be issued was a piece of crap


After 8 years on the Clintonizaton of the military, it would not surprise me to find that ALL equipment was in bad shape. Same would be true of M-14's under those conditions. Weapons wear out. Aluminum weapons wear out faster than steel ones.

[Art Eatman]

captainHoek, SFAIK the time-frame of the articles' info about the alleged powder-problem dates to the rather early days of, what, 1966-ish? 1967? Thereabouts, anyway.

Seems to me quite possible that changes like the size of the gas port and the strength of the recoil spring would make a difference.

And, of course, there's the theoretical vs. the actual. My .50s on my halftrack in Korea were supposed to be capable of 600 rounds per minute. A history of the 50th AAA sez that 450 was the commonly expected output per gun.

Art

[Jamie Young]

From My UnBiased opinion on AR's I view them as 94 Octane Rifles. They don't run on 86 or 87 like most Military guns.

[Quartus]

Right on all points, Sir Art. But the only published rate of fire I've seen for the 16 family is in the neighborhood of 650, not 900 or 1100. YMMV, as each weapon will differ due to lubrication, temperature, etc. Thus the difference you pooint out for the .50s. But not by as much as the diff between 650 and 1100. I read extensively on the 16 back in teh early 70s to 80s, and I don't remember seeing such rates mentioned. But I haven't read anything since then.

[Brian Busch]

Isn't the published cyclic rate for the M16-based open bolt port firing gun in the 900-1100RPM range?

[Bruegger]

Alexis Machine - some selected quotes from you in this thread: (1) “Read. Learn. Don't be a jackass.” […] (2) “BS. I don't have to prove jack [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] to you, you want to learn something get up off your ass and make an effort.” […] (3) “You are a liar.”

Hooo-eee! Speaking of reading, I guess you need to re-read that book “How to Win Friends & Influence People” one more time, and a little more slowly… ;)

captainHoek – quote “And if you can show me someone who had a handguard fall off because he dropped it, I'll show you someone who doesn't have enought strength in his fingers to properly re-install a handguard. That or he's just plain stupid. Have you ever looked at how the handguard is secured? You'd have to break the thing in two to get it off without retracting the lower ring.”

Not true. I had my handguards fall off without being broken in two when I knocked the fore-end into a tree while doing rushes. I’m not sure this would happen with a well-maintained rifle, but this particular one was, let us say definitely “pre-owned.” And I have plenty of strength in my fingers, thank you very much. I may have to plead guilty the “just plain stupid” part, though. But Marines aren’t required to be rocket-scientists.

These threads about the M16 (its basic design) being a POS are just plain old goofy. It’s a perfectly fine rifle design, and as a “Gyrene, grunt-type, one each” I wouldn’t hesitate carrying one into battle. I do think the magazines should be redesigned to be a little more sturdy. Gear that gets issued to grunts needs to be Marine-proof.

Semper fi,
Bruegger out.

[Quartus]

Hard to imagine how, Bruegger, but I'll take your word for it. But it sounds like we agree - it's not a lousy design, but rifles that are so worn out they are falling apart don't exactly inspire confidence.


Brian, the 16 doesn't fire open bolt. Can't - not designed to. Were you referring to something else modeled after the 16?

[jmcrane4]

Interesting, I personally like both the accuracy and dependability os AR-15's and M-16's. I have read all this thread and saw amazing comments like " how many dead troop because of M-16's" and I have never seen one go over 20 rounds without a jam" and other outragous comments. I will say this, I have never had a jam. I am a veteran and used both military AR-M16's. I suggest do what I did tonight and click on the profiles of those making incredable claims. You then click to see all the posts they have written. You will find so many contradictions you will laugh. These poeple making outragous claims should keep track of their lies. I even saw cases of those claiming military service that in other threads indicate they were not even old enough to have served. Some bash a gun in one thread and praise it in another. The thing that surprised me the most is some of the members had hundreds of posts and numerous contradictions. One member has purchased hundreds of guns in the past year, wow and still had time to write all these posts. That one had the most contradictions of all. Lies catch up with everyone, if not now- later.

[Art Eatman]

Ah, yes, jmcrane4; all the more reason for you to appreciate me. :D

Why, before I'd let a lie pass my lips--well, I'd sooner commit adultery.

Art

[Brian Busch]

captainHoek:

There is a port firing weapon based on the M16 that fires from an open bolt. I don't recall the designation, I read about it in one of Duncan Longs books about the M16. I also thought that Colts entry in the SAW trials was basically an open-bolt upper for the M16 to, but I'm not sure about that one.

[Art Eatman]

Every now and then something bubbles up from the sewers of my mind and I can actually find something useful!

And so I found TM9-1005-249-12, dated August 1968.

It's the Maintenance manual for the M16 (USAF) and M16A1, W/E. Heck, it even covers "Bipod, Rifle, M3, w/carrying case. How 'bout dat? The difference between the M16 and the M16A1 is the forward assist.

(The bipod is one of those little folding plastic gizzies. Well, at 10 oz., I figure it's plastic.)

Chamber pressure is given as 52,000 psi. MV of 3,250 ft/sec.

Anyway, the book sez the cyclic rate of fire is 700/800 rounds per minute.

It sez the maximum rate of fire is 150/200 rounds per "mc". Anybody know what "mc" is? Reckon it has to do with reloading? I dunno.

The book also sez that the sustained rate of fire is 12 to 15 rounds per minute. I guess that assumes semiauto fire, with magazine replacement.

Maximum effective range is given as 460 meters, or roughly 500 yards.

Now we know.

Art

[Quartus]

Brian and Art, I think that clears it up. 700-800 for the real 16, and the higher rates for a modified open bolt version, cooked up for who knows what weird reason. It woiuld have to be heavily modified to fire open bolt.




Nice detective work, Brian! Flush 'em out! :D

[striderteen]

Okay, first off I admit I am a civilian and have not ever fired an M-16 series assault rifle. However, I have read about it fairly extensively.

The Armalite AR-15 was used in Vietnam, on more or less unofficial purposes. It worked very well.

The original M-16 subsequently issued to U.S. troops had much-publicized reliability issues, but these were because of the ammunition issued (exacerbated by the lack of proper cleaning equipment), NOT the rifle itself.

The improved M-16A1 and M-16A2 models are very good rifles. They are less rugged and more high-maintenance than some other designs, true, but a well-maintained M-16 is a problem-free M-16. If it's screwed up as described, either you're using the wrong ammunition or the gun/magazine has been damaged by abuse or poor maintenance on your part or the part of a previous user.

[fix]

The subject of magazines continues to come up. As noted in my earlier posts, I believe that this is the most significant problem.
AR10s seem to have fewer problems in this area due to their use of M14 magazines.

Time for another show of hands...

How many of you have experienced failures that could NOT be attributed to magazine problems?

Off the top of my head, I can only think of one or two occasions where the magazine had absolutely nothing to do with experienced failures. Broken extractor comes to mind as well as a "worn" weapon that was so full of crud that the bolt would not rotate into the locked position without a hard thump on the forward assist. The latter could be attributed to operator abuse on my part.

[Quartus]

Cain't argy wit yer on thet, fix.


I ain't never said 'twas the perfect assault rifle, nor even the best. But it's good enough I'd bet my life, or the lives of my family, on it.

And I think I've shot it enough to say that.


But I do like many of the 7.62 rifles, too. CETME, FN-FAL, M-14. Can't fault any of them, and none of them are perfect, either.

I even like an AK!

Actually, I'd like to see someone make double wire springs for the 16 family. Not that I've ever seen a spring break, but with a combat weapon, I like overkill.

[Bruegger]

Quote:
----------------------------------
Time for another show of hands...

How many of you have experienced failures that could NOT be attributed to magazine problems?
----------------------------------

Virtually all my experience with the design is with the M16A2 service rifle. I’ve only fired a relative handful of rounds through a tiny sample of the civilian designs, so I won't comment on the AR15.

I’ve seen any number of malfunctions with the M16A2. Dozens certainly, and maybe hundreds. The great majority were attributable to magazine problems (most commonly, the magazine not being firmly seated or due to feeding issues arising from worn or damaged feed lips). Most of these were remediable with Tap-Rack-Bang or SPORTS. Of course, this isn’t unique to the M16A2; any detachable-magazine-fed rifle can experience these problems.

I’ve also seen malfunctions attributable to too much CLP being applied to the weapon (i.e. Operator Error – which also can afflict any rifle design including a single shot rifle). Other malfunctions were due to worn or broken parts (again, something that can happen to any design of rifle, especially with a service rifle that is expected to receive hard treatment). I agree that improper or over-cleaning has probably destroyed way more rifles than combat has.

The magazine is the weakest link in this fine weapon system. In the abstract, Garand’s en-bloc clip seems to me to be the ideal solution for recharging a military combat rifle. No springs or followers to wear out, no aluminum feed lips to get bent. Just a simple clip of spring steel. It is almost Marine-proof.

Probably could make the M16 magazine out of some space-age polymer with steel feed lips keeping the light weight and eliminating most of the feed problems.

When all is said and done, it isn’t the rifle that wins the battle. It’s the men wielding the rifles; their esprit de corps and the quality of training they received. Honestly, I don’t think the efficiency of a Marine infantry squad today would be greatly reduced if we still used the issue from WWII and everything else stayed the same.

Now, the cannon-cockers will say that the King of Battle wins the battle, but if you want to get really picky, I’d say it’s the service support element that really wins battles and wars (this is coming from a certified school-trained USMC grunt type). Why, for example, did the British 1st Airborne Division get their butts handed to them at Arnhem? Certainly not lack of fighting spirit, lack of training, lack of combat experience or lack of decent weapons. Pound-for-pound, those guys were some of the best soldiers in the world. They held off a numerically superior, combat-hardened enemy fortified with tanks for almost ten days. They were only crushed when they completely ran out of “beans, bullets and bandaids.” What they didn’t have was a logistics tail for resupply. Monty’s armored cav took too long in relieving them.

Semper fi,
Bruegger out.

[1 IL HIK]

I keep coming back to this thread just so I can read the original post. If I can control my laughter, I attempt to read the whole thread on ak-47.net, but I keep pi$$ing myself!

If this Pvt was in your unit, don't you think his attitude warrants a healthy dose of wall to wall counseling? :D

[Quartus]

Hmm. I guess you are referring to what we used to call 4 wall counseling.


Sometimes that's what's needed.


:D

[Correia]

The following is my uneducated total cake-eating civillian opinion.

First off, no weapon system is perfect. And everything is capable of malfunctioning. If you haven't seen a particular type of gun malfunction yet, you haven't been around it long enough. However, it is easier for some guns to choke than others.

I own a Bushmaster. Not a parts gun, but a Bushmaster. I also own a parts FAL, and a Vepr. And I've shot a pile of different military style rifles, as they are my favorite type of firearm and I seek them out whenever I can. The opinions here are my own, from things that I have seen with mine own eyes, not read about or heard from my cousin's brother's uncle's roomate who was in SOG and the Rhodesian light infantry. ;)

I have the following complaints about the ARs design:

I hate the spring loaded ejector. I know for a fact that tiny pieces of crud, or brass shavings can work their way under the roll pin, causing the ejector to malfunction. When this happens the bolt has to be compleatly stripped and the roll pin has to be punched out. I have only seen this happen once, but it was a severe pain in the rear to diagnose and fix. I much prefer fixed ejectors, no spring at all there, and they just seem simpler and more fool proof. On the other hand, I have never seen an M1 Garand or an M14 have this kind of malfunction. And also the new G-36 and the Tavor both use a spring loaded ejector. (Learned that quite to my surprise)

In certain kinds of malfunctions the long bolt carrier of the AR will be stuck with just a little bit of carrier extending into the buffer tube. When this happens, the cocking handle will not engage the bolt carrier, and the carrier is not far enough forward to be engaged by the forward assist. Also with the carrier extending into the stock, the gun cannot be broken open. When this happens the best thing I have found to do is drop the mag,and then strike the butstock on the ground to jiggle the bolt carrier loose. Also a rare malfunction, but I have seen it happen, and it is a pain to clear.

I don't see direct gas impingement as a good thing. Yes, it does work, and it eleminates the moving parts of an op rod in a gas tube (helping accuracy). But it does gunk up the bolt a lot faster, thereby giving you more stuff to clean. I look at it this way, gas impingement may work, but if it is so great, why haven't we seen it on hardly any other rifles designed since the 60's? (However it has been pointed out to me that the G11 was intended to use direct gas impingement, but the pictures of the inside of that thing look like a flipping clock, so I won't go there). :)

AR mags just plain suck. They are flimsy and too light. Compare a standard GI mag to an AK, M14, FAL, G3 mag. You could beat somebody to death with a loaded AK mag and it would probably be fine. AR mags are easily bent. I guess that this wouldn't really be too much of a problem if we didn't have that gosh darned stupid mag capacity law. Then I wouldn't have to worry about trying to save my precious pre-ban mags and I could just buy new ones.

The cocking handle is not located in a very easy to use place. Other than that the ergonomics are superb.

On the plus side, the AR is very user friendly. Mag changes are quick. The safety is easy to use. Recoil is very light. Accuracy is usually pretty darn good. And they work well most of the time.

I still think that we could field a better designed rifle. And I say that with out meaning any insult to all of you AR lovers. But the basic design dates back to the late 50s. I do believe that if we started from scratch we could design a rifle that is superior. But I'm a realist, and I know that this isn't going to happen. The M16 works well enough, it gets the job done. And why design a new rifle when we can spend money on useless crap like the OICW? :)

[Quartus]

I do believe that if we started from scratch we could design a rifle that is superior.

No doubt about that! My only point in all this is that the M-16 is NOT a death trap, as it has been painted by some. It's a good battle rifle (with NO apologies to those who insist on defining that term in 7.62 only) and will get the job done. Sure, it malfunctions, like every gun. But not often enough to worry me.

Your comments on the ejector are interesting. In theory, I agree it's not the best design, but I've never had a failure there.

[fix]

Your comments on the ejector are interesting. In theory, I agree it's not the best design, but I've never had a failure there.

Stand by...

[agtman]

After reading 5 pages of this thread ...


... my 2-cents is I'd prefer a quality M1A in combat.

Mine's very accurate, and has had ZERO feeding/reliability problems as compared to the various comments/insights/stories posted here about people's experience with the M-16 series (or, for that matter, the AR15 series).

Although I prefer the .308/7.62 Nato round to the .223, for me it's less a question of caliber than an issue of having a reliable, problem-free platform with me if I'm ever forced to visit that 2-way rifle range called "armed combat."

[fix]

Mine's very accurate, and has had ZERO feeding/reliability problems as compared to the various comment/insights/stories posted here about people's experience with the M-16 series (or, for that matter, the AR15 series).

Same here with the AR10 rifles. Like I said, more of a magazine issue than design. That being said, the only reasons I prefer the AR10 over the M1A are ergonomics and flexibility in attaching optics. I'd rather clean an M1A though...

[Jake 98c/11b]

If only I could acquire some Italian mags, their Beretta 70 series mags are the AR pattern (as per nato standards) but made of steel. I have seen a few over the years but they are expensive, a little heavier but nearly indestructable as I understand it.

[STLRN]

Jake
Tried to PM you RE your question, but your box was full.

[Hummer70]

Conformer posted a http referencing another site. A guy name Tyris posted there "Man, I'd pay money to see this thread started on that AR15 board. hah"

Truer statement I have not heard lately. That forum will delete all negative messages about ARs in a flash.

There is a excellent work by Daniel Waters on the history of the M16. http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-3.html

If you start reading you will find out things about the AR design you never dreamed of.

If you keep reading and get down to the 1980-85 time frame this background covers the M16A2. Look at the entry for Feb 1983 and it covers evaluations of Aberdeen Proving Ground and where it was documented in their Test Report that the M16A1E1 (later adopted as M16A2) was identified as having a "catastrophic/occasional deficiency"

That report used to be available on line and I downloaded it (about 10 megs worth) and reading it, it is evident that there was a cover up of the seriousness as the report starts out basically saying it is wonderful and there were no problems. Keep reading and it says well there might be a problem and back in the middle buried deep in one paragraph it says it was considered to be a "catastrophic/occasional/deficiency" identified above per Mil S 822A The Army Safety Standard.

The thread it was on is no longer on the internet so I figure they had money problems or someone bitched as to its availability for public viewing.

If anyone would like a copy of the report I have it on a file. Hit me with a PM and when I get enough I will upload it before I go to bed as it takes about 85 minutes on dial up.

Then at the back Aberdeen recommended the ejection bump be redesigned to direct brass to the 1:00-2:00 position and retested prior to fielding. It also recommends changing the mag floor plate so the mag cannot be inserted upside down (we have all see that one).

If you google "catastrophic occasional deficiency M16" you will get multiple hits talking about this where guys talk about guys getting shot accidentally because the guy next to him got a piece of hot brass down their neck and their involuntary reaction to getting severely burned they turned and shot the guy next to them.

A similar thread was on "the other forum" and two shootings were identified there but the thread was killed and I am told is not even in their archives for full members to retrieve.

About two months ago I was surfing around and the Army Safety Center documented an event where two USAF types were on a Army range and one got hot brass down his neck and in his gyrations shot and wounded the guy next to him.
A 5.56 at five feet has to hurt extra bad.

I can identify with hot brass causing involuntary reactions. One day I shot a three shot quick string left handed from the hip and I did not have a shirt on. All of a sudden I suffered this terrible pain and looked down and all three cases were STICKING TO MY STOMACH ! ! ! ! I was the only one on the range and I can say I had no idea where that muzzle was pointed so I can readily identify with those poor guys that got burned and shot the guy next to them. I had 3rd degree burns, skin burned away showing raw meat for weeks and it took perhaps ten years for the scars to disappear.

At that writing I had perhaps 20 years rifle competition experience and obviously I knew to keep muzzle pointed down range but when you are getting burned severely and unexpectedly you have no control over your reactions.

I talked to a ex Drill Sgt. who was a member of the Army MTU and he said he had never seen it but felt sure it would most likely to occur on basic training ranges and that he had seen alot of things happen you would never dream of. He readily agreed it is completely conceivable this would happen back in the KD range days when kids were lined up just like in highpower competition shooting standing shoulder to shoulder.

Bottom line is be careful on the range and stay well away from guy next to you and hope he is as well.

[Skans]

Boy, this is an old thread! Interesting read which confirms what I already know about the Beer-Can 16. They were made to be disposable, not refurbished like Garands and M14's. I really don't see why anyone even bothers to refurbish the uppers or lowers - they're cheap, just toss 'em in the recycle bin when they're done.

[kraigwy]

Got to admit, this has been fun reading.

However, after reading the PVTs post, I'm afraid if he was in my unit, he would have been assigned to mixing diesel oil in a half 55 gal drum and steering.

I can't say much about the M16s in basic, I used the M14. I didnt get any formal training (back then) on the '16s. (This was in 1966). I got introduced to the M16 upon being taken to the range after I got my orders for Vietnam, Republic of.

They tried to provide a bit of training, but being GIs we stuffed as much ammo as we could, in what mags we could get and let 'em rip. What were they to do, send us to vietnam.

So my real indoctornation to the M-16 was OJT in a live fire FTX with pop up shoot back targets. I took to the M-16 like a duct to water. I loved it, it was reliable, accurate, and didnt require near the maintaince people claimed.
And I was infantry, we didnt have what you call a controled enviorment.

Fast forward a few years, I was a Weapons Sgt in a Reserve SF Unit. My main job was instructing weapons of all kinds, I never delt with one I would trade my '16 for if I had to go back in combat.

A bit later (after OCS) I was put in charge of the AK-NG Marksmanship unit. Back then we had too types of rifle teams, Composite (M-14s) and Combat, (M16-a1s). The combat teams had to use the Units' (arms room) M-16s and they were quite respectable to 600 yards (not by today standards of 80 grn bullets) but they worked quite well. I do like the A2s better though. I like the rear sights, and faster twist barrels.

I'm not saying the M16 is the best rifle out there, in my Humble opinion that would be the New FN Model 70 in 270 WIN. But as a combat rifle I dont think there is a better one. As a target rifle (service rifle that it) there is none better. I've shot M14/M1As in compitition since 1977 and love them, but you can teach an old dog new tricks, they, the M14 series cant compete with the ARs of today (Look at the firing line at Perry if you dont believe me).

I've played with AK/SKSs since my adventures in SE asia. I never saw the huge differance in reliability between them and the AR/M16s. In real life (as opposed to internet life). The ARs are just as reliable. As far as accuracy there is no compairson. Again look at Perry, you dont see AKs on the line. Even in the match rifle events where they would be legal. They cant compair with the ARs.

Yes the M14/M1As are great, but even army is replacing them with ARs (Match M16s) for the desinated marksmanship rifles.

No sir, if you move away from the internet, into the real world, The M16 is the choice, AKs are for countries that cant aford real rifles.

But hey, its fun to read these AR vs AK post, so keep them coming.

[StiveC2007]

Im just gonna put this out there. the list of weapons that DO NOT FAIL. you listed the SKS. Mine sucks wont cycle and is probably the biggest POS I have. I love firearms and AND I HATE THE SKS

[lexington1]

This is an old thread, but I had never read it before. I can relate to my own experiences with M-16's. I was in basic in Ft. Benning in 1989. We were issued A1's, and for the most part they had been heavily used. Mine shot pretty well and for the most part I shot Expert in the practices. It was prone to jamming, however. When we had our final qualification my M16 jammed twice during the shooting. My drill sgt. was really ****** because so many in our platoon were having trouble qualifying that day and he expected me to shoot Expert and I was having trouble finishing the course. If I remember correctly you were allowed two malfunctions on the range before you were booted off. Anyway the drill sgt. went and came back with new magazines. I shot the course, shot Expert as a matter of fact, and everything was fine. I really believe that most problems with M16s were caused by using worn out magazines. The only other problems I've ever really had with the A1's was when I used blanks they would occasionaly jam on full auto.

In AIT we were issued A2's which were fairly new and I never had any problems with them in Ft. Benning or later at my duty stations. I didn't really care for the 3 shot burst, but that's just me.

After getting out of the Army I really didn't want anything to do with the black rifles. Nothing wrong with them, but I had just gotten tired of them. A few years ago I picked up an AR15 and have since had a ball with it!

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If you google "catastrophic occasional deficiency M16" you will get multiple hits talking about this where guys talk about guys getting shot accidentally because the guy next to him got a piece of hot brass down their neck and their involuntary reaction to getting severely burned they turned and shot the guy next to them.

You revived a 7 year old AR bashing thread to allege that the "catastrophic occasional deficiency" of the M16 is that it occasionally flings hot brass down your shirt? If that is a deficiency, it is one shared by the vast majority of semi-auto and full-auto weapons.

[tju1973]

I had a worn out "chrome" a2 in Boot Camp-- qualified with not much an issue. Had an A2 in Cuba-- Worn out-- still shot well.
Had the SAME A2 the entire time in the Fleet-- it was shiney, rattled, and shot well-- qualified with zero issues, and it always had the same Zero. It never jammed, I never shot blanks through it, and I cleaned it everytime before I ate in the field.
I was a coach then a Block NCO at Edson Range my last 1 1/2 years- -I saw hundreds and hundreds of recruits qualify with little issues-- broken springs, broken mags, etc, but nothing our small camp armory couldn't fix on the line usually...

Point being, the M16/AR15 have lovers and haters. Aks have lovers and haters. I have an AK, and hopefully will finally have an AR by Christmas-- I can only speak from experience-- I carried an A2 in the desert, jungle, on ship, in the rain, mud, etc-- and as long as I did basic Grunt maintenance, it never ever had a problem. I fired it until the barrel glowed, dropped it down a muddy hill (I was fast behind it on my butt too), fell about 12 off a small rock ledge in MWTC (Pickle Meadows) and she kept on working.

I like my AK, but given everything else being equal, I still trust the AR more-- I know it better, and despite what some say, the 5.56 is still a man killer. Not that the 7.62x39 isn't, but you get my drift--

The AR platform is still great, and it aint going away anytime soon...

Thank the Lord!

[HorseSoldier]

Thread from the dead . . .

It also recommends changing the mag floor plate so the mag cannot be inserted upside down (we have all see that one).


I've done a whole lot of training with M16s and M4s in the military (and now AR patrol rifles in law enforcement) and I can't recall ever seeing it done. Not even in basic training, to the best of my knowledge and recollection. Definitely not with competently trained shooters.

If you google "catastrophic occasional deficiency M16" you will get multiple hits talking about this where guys talk about guys getting shot accidentally because the guy next to him got a piece of hot brass down their neck and their involuntary reaction to getting severely burned they turned and shot the guy next to them.

I've caught stray brass from M4s and assorted other weapons and never flagged anybody with my muzzle much less AD'ed and shot somebody accidentally. Not saying I'm the hairiest chested guy out there -- also been on the line with plenty of buddies who also caught brass from pistols, M4s, various foreign weapons and whatever else and they also didn't do a silly dance while cranking rounds off in random directions.

Sometimes stuff sucks and you just have to man up and get through it -- and hot brass down the back of your shirt barely qualifies, really.

[Hummer70]

Insofar as "allege" is concerning this there is no allege to it. I downloaded the Aberdeen report a couple years ago and it is there plain and clear for anyone to read so it is published in an official report by the Test and Evaluation Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground Small Arms Branch.
Go to:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-9/index.html

Now lets fast forward a little bit and look at FM 23-9 Rifle Marksmanship and scan down to Range Safety and Risk Management and go to D-4 D which says

"d. Rules of Risk Management. No unnecessary risk will be accepted. The leader who has authority to accept a risk is responsible for protecting his personnel from unnecessary risk. An unnecessary risk is one that could be reduced or eliminated without hindering mission accomplishment."

Under Risk management there are no exceptions for hair on chest, sucking up pain, ought to know better, I never heard of, I don't think, wusses should not be on firing line etc. Show this to a military officer and ask him if he would accept responsibility after reading this. Many have because they don't know the background of what happened but then again there is a famous saying "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

Basically you have the Test and Evaluation Command issuance of a report with catastrophic occasional deficiency and you have this document. Better yet ask an attorney if he would like to have a case where a troop was shot/killed as a result of an identified problem the Army knew about and didn't do anything about prior to fielding.

I have and he told me to find him one family survivor or victim of such a shooting and with the documentation and witnesses available he would never work again. And this was from a gov't lawyer.

This is why I will never take an AR to a match that has not been potty trained and or have a brass deflector in place. When I go to a match I look at who is to my left and what they are shooting and I watch their brass ejection. The NRA rule book for highpower says you will not interfere with a shooter on another firing point. Pelting him with hot brass comes to mind here. There is nothing in NRA book about sucking up, etc. Safety is their main concern and should be.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

This is why I will never take an AR to a match that has not been potty trained and or have a brass deflector in place.

Well it is a good thing that the brass deflector knows not to send brass in whatever direction a person might be standing. Maybe they should retrofit that technology to the 99.9% of remaining semi-automatic and automatic firearms that also fling hot brass. :rolleyes:

[Art Eatman]

Enuf necrothreadia...