a little experience with the m16

P

pvtmcd

Inactive
I am an old member with a new name.
I joined the army and went through basic and AIT with the M16.
I am back and I am not pleased with my experience with the M16.
Both of the M16A2s that I have been issued have had many failures to operate.
I would not trust them in battle regardless of how clean they are.
This is not a M16 bashing thread.
My question is...
What is so great about them?
 
pvtmcd said:
What is so great about them?
Click to expand...


Who knows? I don't see what's so hot about AR15/M16/M4s. All I know is my experience with them has been horrible. Everyone likes to tell me how great they are, but I have yet to fire a decent one. I'll take an AK anyday over an AR.
 
Amen Maser. When I went through basic, all of the DSes said they'd take an AK if they had a choice. These were men who had up to 20 years of combat experience. Seeing as we have people here who love AR's and hate AK's, vice versa and none of the above, this thread is bound to start a flame war.

I just find the AK is better suited for the kind of combat we have these days, namely urban combat. Not to mention which rifle has better knock down capability? AK, hands down. The AK is a simple, rugged, reliable, and effective weapon that doesn't need too many extra add-ons like the AR. The reason (this is just my opinion!)? Kalashinov got it right the first time.
 
Not an M16 bashing thread, eh?

I went through basic training with an M14, was issued with an M14 when I got to a regular unit and in three years in the army I never saw an M16. Later, I was in the D.C. National Guard and was issued an M16. Never fired it. Even later, however, I owned a Colt AR15 and also a Rumaniun AK in 5.45mm. I liked both. But I have no combat experience, so can't comment either way. However, no one ever complains about the accuracy of an M16 or the weight, nor the reliability or ruggedness of an AK, though there are many different AK's, and they are not all necessarily the same. It is a pity that the best qualities of each could not be combined.

Personally, I don't think either one has the genius and quality of the M1 and M14. I suppose that reflects what I was trained with. The AK has some of the straight forward operation of the M14 with none of the fine tolerances required by the M15's action. You would think the Mini-14 would be a wonderful thing but not from reading the posts here. Whatever else you might say about the AK, I think they have awful stocks. The overall finish is irrelevant (same with the M16) but I like the magazines for the AK, especially the ones for the 5.45. By no means is it necessary to tart up either one with add-ons, though that is very common at present in the US Army. The cat is out of the bag, however, and I doubt anyone would give up their optical sights they have.

Another interesting thing is that they have both been around for a long time, the AK being only about ten years the senior. The AR-15 (pre-M-16) could actually claim to being in combat sooner and I think the British can make that claim in SE Asia in Malaysia. Both have been used by several armies under just about every condition.

Here is something that will really make the pot boil: what's so great about the FAL? I used to want one and nearly bought one. But after examining one (didn't shoot it) I decided it was too long, too heavy, and too complicated--compared with an M14. But I don't have an M14 either!
 
LOL. I hated mine also.It certainly wasnt new.To qualify as expert,we only had to hit the black,which was about 6" in diameter,from a mere 50 yards.Stoppages were common and accuracy was all over the place.It probably had changed hands all year with no cleaning or maintence.The rifling looked like it was nearly done for.After figuring out where this thing was hitting,I managed to hit the black,got my expert and had a laugh all the way back to base from the range.The DI kept glaring at me and put me on gun cleaning duty for being such a smart butt.The m60 machinegun was kinda interesting.Parts everywhere and no idea where it all goes.:D I learned quickly that afternoon.

I got home from basic and fired my new ar15 that I had bought from the bonus money before basic. It was much better.No stoppages,accuracy right where it should be.It wasnt worn out and this one works.

As far as the Automat Klashnikov, it does what its supposed to do with minimal maintence.I like the gun but dislike the stock.None of the ones I have shot fit right.They are either too short or slide all over the place.
 
The M16 they issued me in 1971 never gave me any problems and preformed in the wet muck with out a hicup.we would get them so hot you would burn yourself if you ever touched the barrel, maybe they dont like the conditions in the sand box.all the AR's I have now all function perfectly too .maybe a new weapon is in order or a redesign to improve function in a desert environment .our soldiers should have the best equptment we can get whatever it cost .:D
 
From what i've been hearing, the m16s available are old and well past their prime. I feel bad for my buddy, he's been issued a pos while back at home I've got a brand new bushie (with aimpoint)...good thing he's using a computer more than his rifle.
 
A lot of the M16s the military has are used and abused. I own 2 AK type (MAK90 and 91), but I love my ARs more than my AKs. I have a DPMS 16" and a Colt HBar Sporter Match. Both of my ARs will outshoot my AKs any time of the year. My HBar will often do 1 moa or less with 77grn SMKs. I have never experienced a jam with the Colt nor the DPMS when the ammo is up to spec. One thing I will agree with you guys is that the M16 will not be as reliable as the AK when it is all dirty with sand/dirt/fouling. If you I have a choice on what to pick for combat I'd pick the M16 anytime. AR15s have won national matches and the AK has not. The AR has been know to fire moa groups out to 600 yards and the AK is not know for precision accuracy. The ergonomic of the AR fits me better and the AKs don't. The AKs have terrible iron sight, but my AR has target grade sights straight from the box. I can shoot my AR a lot better than the AKs, so in battle/competition, he who puts his bullets where it counts wins. I don't hate my AKs in fact I love the MAK91 for smoking the hills when the 75 round drum mag is loaded. :D josh
 
It always seems to me that the people who do not like the American made products, are the only ones who have problems with them. (AR-15 vs AK, Chevy vs Honda......goes on)

I have never had a hiccup out of my AR-15, and there is no question to what rifle I would pick in SHTF, my AR-15. We are just repeating ourselves. The strengths of the AK are as follows: RELIABLE, cheap, good stopping power, simple to use.

The strengths of the AR are as follows: Accurate, reliable (IMO, and obviously the government thinks so too!) rail system, light weight, and low recoil.

In my eyes the AR-15 wins anyday. (my eyes cant use the AK sights very well either)
 
I was trained on the M16A1 in the military and liked it so much, I went and bought one on the civilian market. Pretty, ain't it! :)

M16A1.jpg


If you keep it relatively clean and lubed, it will function flawlesslessy. Of course, it needs decent ammunition to eat and the magazines must work properly. Not that hard to do. What's a few thousand dollars to be able to Rock & Roll?
 
Thanks for the input.
I guess this topic has been exhausted several times over.
I just wanted to say something now that I have some real experiece with the M16.
The M16s that I have used were clean. But they were also abused and a bit old.
I wish I had some experience with the M17, the FAMAS G2, and the STEYR AUG A3.
 
Until two weeks ago my issue weapon was a mid 70's manufacture GAU5, it functioned flawlessly for me for 8 years. It was replaced with an M4. So far it's g2g. I've only got about 1000 rounds through it, but it looks like it's going to be a workhorse.

PVT, the weapons you used at basic and AIT are clean, but they are also very used and abused. Probably more than any other weapon you will ever get your hands on. Think about the number of trainees hands they've been through. My initial M16 training, was much like yours, but after I got my issued weapon that was maintained by someone who knew my life depended on his work it's been smooth sailing.
 
My M4 worked just fine.

The majority of failures for the M16 series are magazine induced. If you have crap magazines you will have many, many failures in you weapon.

A large portion of the magazines in the US military are unserviceable. The unfortunate fact is that even if they are unserviceable and are easy to replaced, a magazine whether serviceable or not is an a check in the block on an inventory. Also many people who hold the purse strings don't understand why it is important to replace mags when they go down.
 
So there you have it, the M16 systems being used for training are abused and unmaintained (besides cleaning) junk.

What is so great about the M16/AR15? Meet me at the next action rifle match with your AK and I'll show you. The AK simply cannot keep up. All of my AR's are 100 percent reliable. My AK's are jealous because they don't get fondled anymore.

As for "knockdown power"..........dead is dead. The 5.56mm/223 will kill you deader than a door nail. Recent failures have been attributed to the heavier bullets fired thru the shorter M-4 barrels not allowing the bullet to reach 2900 fps, a critical velocity for extracting 100 percent of the 223's potential. At 2900fps or higher it is vicious, below it is an ice pick (albeit a long ice pick).
 
"Shotgun minister, not to disagree with your statement, but what would you have issued to our boys?"

take a hint from the australian army and start issuing Steyr AUGS :D . nah just kidding , but i love the Steyr AUG i was issued , tough as hell and really good standard issue optics. but seriously , they were on the right track when with the XM8 trials (BTW the XM8 was always pretty much a G36 with a different frame , among a few small changes)

as for the M16 vs AK debate... my opinions on the M16 have changed due to recent experience. M16 defeats it in majority situations. AK's may be fearfully reliable but they will jam eventually , all firearms do.
 
My brother loaned me a recent article in Jane's Small Arms that detailed the problems encountered in the M4/M4A1, with both reliability and ammunition problems, to include the 77 gr. round. Unfortunately, the article is in Maryland, and I'm in Georgia. Those of you with access can reveiw it. It dealt with the M4 and the M14. He has no dog in the fight, considering anything less than 5"/54 cal. to be unworthy of attention.

A new, MilSpec M4 or M16A3 is reliable and accurate for several thousands of rounds. It may not be as sand-tolerant as other weapons, but it'll work. The problem occurs after the weapon begins to wear. None of us have micrometer calibrated eyes, and the early signs of failure can be attributed to any number of external factors. The usual result is a jamming problem at the odd, usually worst, time.

As for the AK, I'd like to point out that these weapons, in many cases, have been in use for decades. They were new in the 1970s and 1980s. That they are still capable of function, and hits, is a testimony to Kalashnikov's genius. I'd like to say that most of these beat-up old soldiers are still capable of minute-of-soldier after many thousands of rounds. A 30-40 year-old M16, with the maintenance given the AKs we encounter, would have reduced itself to splinters long ago.

I'll point out that the weapons issued to trainees are clean, and are given inspections by the armorers between classes. Any badly worn parts, including the barrels are replaced. I spoke to the armorers at Parris Island when my daughter graduated from USMC Boot Camp just over a year ago. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top