Home Defense Opinions

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Friday, October 24, 2025 16:55
VIEWED: 6217
PAGE 4 of 8

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, February 17, 2007 8:57 PM

Untrue - in vietnam many of the incidents in the original issue were caused by using a heavier powder than the test versions, and the issue weapons not having the chromed bore, which was to some degree rectified in the M16A1, but a bit too late for our boys who depended on it.

Really though, apologies to Mr. Stoner, but the M-16/M4 platform is pure junk.

The problem stems from the fact that instead of the expelled gases striking a piston rod to charge the next round, they are blown straight into the chamber itself - along with powder residue, carbon fouling and what have you, over and over.

And the tolerances are such that a mere 3 grains of sand in the wrong place will cause a jam.

Essentially the weapon craps on it's own dinner plate, and eventually it *will* jam due to this, even the most spotless weapon might get one mag off, but that fouling builds up quick in a protracted engagement and then you're stuck with a plastic club.

Somehow I don't think the enemy is going to be kind enough to stop and let you break out the cleaning kit every 2 or 3 mags.

Front line units get the M-4 and supposedly it's been improved somewhat, but the shorter barrel would make the terribly anemic .223 it already fires even less effective and less accurate besides.

Supply units usually get decades-old M16 relics on their way to the scrap heap, often with mechanical defects or shot out bores besides - and this was one VERY significant factor in the ambush of the 507th Maintanence company and related casualties.

Excerpts from official report.

"While under fire, PVT Nace, SPC Johnson, and SGT Petrik successfully maneuvered their respective vehicles around and through obstacles and continued all the way through the city. Soldiers in this group returned fire while moving. Most of the Soldiers in this group report that they experienced weapons malfunctions."

"Corporal Luten, in the tractor-trailer driven by PFC Dubois, attempted to return fire with the 507th’s only .50 cal. machinegun, but the weapon failed. Luten was wounded in the leg while reaching for his M16."

"SPC Grubb returned fire with his M16 until wounded in both arms, despite reported jamming of his weapon, while PFC Elliot maneuvered their fuel truck through the ambush."

"SGT Riley attempted to secure 1SG Dowdy’s M16, since his own rifle had malfunctioned, but was unsuccessful. SGT Riley then directed SPC Johnson and SPC Hernandez to take cover. Riley also attempted to fire Johnson’s and Hernandez’s M16s, but both jammed. Johnson and Hernandez were both wounded."

"In the HEMTT wrecker towing a 5-ton tractor-trailer, SPC Hudson attempted to fire his M249 SAW while driving, but it malfunctioned."

End Result.
"Of the 33 Soldiers who entered An Nasiriyah in 18 vehicles (including two that were being towed) on 23 March, 11 Soldiers were killed, seven were captured and nine were wounded (including some of those captured). Sixteen Soldiers in eight vehicles emerged from the attack. The number of Iraqi casualties inflicted by Soldiers of the 507th and 3d FSB could not be determined. From start to finish, the attack on the 507th lasted an estimated 60 to 90 minutes."

This was a more or less wipeout of a US Armed Forces Convoy caused in part due to reliance on junk weapon platforms that are unreliable in the extreme.
Go on and look up the relevant details - many of the 'captured' were so because they were unable to fight due to jammed weapons.

After experiencing the 'reliability' of the M16 in training, when I got placed with my unit I opted for the only other option we had in the armory, an M60 with what seemed to be an AA barrel on it, yet another scrapheap relic with a long history of problems, not the least of which was getting parts for it, since at any one time *something* on it would be broken.

My loader carried an M79 and an officers M1911, and I carried a non-issue Colt .380 Mustang, cause when it came right down to it, neither one of us was going to stake our lives on stuff we couldn't trus

PIRATECAT

Saturday, February 17, 2007 11:32 PM

Its not untrue. Still their is people who can't shoot a gun or keep it maintained. Give me a M16 anyday never had a problem with when I was in.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

ANTHONYT

Sunday, February 18, 2007 6:00 AM

My only direct experience with the M-16 is actually a civillian variant that a friend of mine brings shooting sometimes. I believe it is called a Bushmaster.

I have never seen his AK jam, but there have been occasional problems with the Bushmaster.

Now, a Bushmaster is not a proper military version, so the comparison may be moot.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREDGIBLET

Sunday, February 18, 2007 6:15 AM

There is no question or debate about the AK being more reliable than the M-16. The question is is the increase in reliability worth the drop in accuracy.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, February 18, 2007 6:25 AM

Well, an AK can hit something reliably out to 300-400 meters... and since our own military has established that most firefights happen at 300 meters or less... I'm still of the mind that reliability trumps accuracy here. The AK isn't a Saturday Night Special by any means. It's still accurate enough.

What is the benefit of having a rifle (the M16) accurate to 500-600 meters when it is seldom used at such ranges? Meanwhile, this more accurate rifle suffers increased maintenance and reliability issues.

I'll throw my vote in with the guy above who says that the #1 criteria of a firearm is that it must go boom when you pull the trigger.

Every Time.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREDGIBLET

Sunday, February 18, 2007 6:57 AM

Accurate out to 400 Meters, alright, but how accurate is accurate? Accurate enough to hit a person? Accurate enought to hit a moving person? Accurate enough to hit one person out of a group? The ability to hit EXACTLY what you are shooting at is frequently critical especially in urban warfare where civilians are all around.

P.S. my preference runs to the M82 area personally

RUE

Sunday, February 18, 2007 7:01 AM

Boys ! It's late. Way past time to put your toys away and go to bed. Do you hear me ??

Nag nag NAG nag nag nag

GEEZER

Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"Corporal Luten, in the tractor-trailer driven by PFC Dubois, attempted to return fire with the 507th’s only .50 cal. machinegun, but the weapon failed. Luten was wounded in the leg while reaching for his M16."

If these guys had a Ma Deuce fail on them, I have to suspect that they weren't doing very effective weapons maintenance. The M2 hasn't been been in service for almost 90 years for nothing.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KANEMAN

Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:41 PM

Concerning the M16: Lets go ask all the corpses around the world what they think of the M16's accuracy.

FREDGIBLET

Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:21 PM

All right, lets try a different question, what would be the third choice, and why wouldn't it be the first? I don't have enough experience with guns to actually pick one but I'll toss a few names out, FN FAL, Steyr Aug, H&K G11, H&K G36, FAMAS. Any comments?

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE