a little experience with the m16

JR47

The weapons at the depots are all on their last legs, that is often where the weapons in the fleet go when they are replaced with newer ones. Beyond that they get almost daily abuse of the recruits and unfortunately allot of unauthorized maintenance. You don't know how many times they are scrubbed with some really abrasive cleaner to ensure that there is no carbon in them for the final inspection.

The inspection that they get from the 2111s is a function check, drop gauge of the barrel and checking tightness of the pistol grip. If the weapon fails than it is sent to one of the depots, Albany or Barstow, were they are normally de-miled and DRMOed.

The Marine Corps has A4s, the A3 is extremely rare.
 
In the Air Force the M16s that are in our Combat Arms Training may be clean but they sure as heck worn where it counts, the barrel. These guns may go 100 rounds 5 days a week, but the worst thing that happens to it is during cleaning. The Air Force issues Break Free, cotton patches, brass scrubber, steel jags and a parkerized 5 section steel cleaning rod. What's wrong with that you ask? They did not issue a bore guide nor cleaning instructions. There are bent cleaning rods and jags being pushed in and out of those barrels almost everyday. Sure they are clean, but are the barrels free from bore damage? I don't think the military has done any research on how the rifles are being cleaned. If I'm depending on the rifle to save my buddies' lives and mine, I'd sure as hell will give some deep thoughts in preserving the accuracy of my rifle.

A 30-40 year-old M16, with the maintenance given the AKs we encounter, would have reduced itself to splinters long ago.
Click to expand...
And why would a 30-40 year old M16 become like that? If you say the plastic will crack then I say the wood stock would rott first before plastic. The article you're referring to is where/what issue of Jane's? I'd like to see it if the article states that the M4 is inferior over the AK. I agree that the M-16 will burn out it's barrel faster than an AK-47 because it's a higher pressure round, but compared to the AK-74 barrel life will be about the same. As I stated I own two AK type rifles and two AR type rifles, IMHO the AR wins in 3 gun matches and long range shooting. That's all I have to read and see to make me a believer. You can't tell me that the AK will eat sand/dirt/mud and keep on going without any added excessive wear on it's factory 3" moa accuracy. Go to the matches and see what's winning. If the M16/AR15 were so terrible in their reliability it wouldn't be the prime pick of top shooters in Camp Perry, USPSA and 3 gun Matches. josh

josh
 
Matches are nowhere like combat. The guns they use, I wouldn't bring into combat. Maybe the AK isn't as accurate but it can take more than the M-16 anyday. And bring up the matches all you want, but that doesn't mean squat to actual fighting. An AK is in a sandstorm, she'll be up and running after a little bit of shaking. The M-16 is hopeless in that. Accuracy is great but what good is your gun if it requires constant maintenance like some trophy wife?
 
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.
Click to expand...

The U.S. military goes through more ammo training its soldiers than almost every other country. The average AK-47 isn't going to get the mileage (shooting wise) as the average M-16 is going to get. While I wouldn't go so far as to say that the M-16 is as reliable and durable as the AK, it is certainly reliable enough that military and police units around the world use it in life and death situations. Thats proof enough for me.

BigMac,

Matches are nowhere like combat. The guns they use, I wouldn't bring into combat.
Click to expand...

Several of the finest militaries in the world disagree with you. They take the m16/AR15 platform into battle everyday.

An AK is in a sandstorm, she'll be up and running after a little bit of shaking. The M-16 is hopeless in that.
Click to expand...

You live in the dessert? How about a third world country? Me neither.

The only sandstorm condition my AR has ever experienced was ironically at a three gun match. We had frontal conditions here in Florida, blowing sand in 30 plus MPH winds. It felt like being sand blasted and even worst when your round impacted, popping up sand to be grabbed by the wind. My AR sounded horrible while loading from all the sand build up but she functioned fine as did every other AR in my group. I would tell you how the AK's performed in this storm except you already know...........knowbody uses them ha ha ha. Us an AK and lose with an AK LOL.
 
pvtmcd-
You say you now have a little experience with an M16. So do a lot of people. And I do mean a lot. I have 10 years in the Corps myself, never had a reason to dislike my rifle. If AKs were intrinsically better, they would be used for match guns. They aren't.

One thing to remember about the AK, which you may or may not learn during your time in service. The AK has a very distinctive profile. We were taught that when we saw people carrying AKs, to open fire.
 
That's interesting...

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.
Click to expand...


One of the moderators here and at THR is a dedicated 3-gun competitor, and finishes quite well in the matches, often first, while using an AK variant. Hint - sometimes it's not the gun in the match...

Myself, after 20+ years in the military, am glad I don't have to deal with the M16 anymore. My AR-15s see more safe time now that I'm not qualifying with the M16, and my Kalashnikovs are the ones that go to the range more often. One of the ARs is disassembled currently, waiting on the gas piston retrofit kit.

Joshua, roger that on beat-up CATM M16 rifles! Last time I qualified, I was aghast to see how much of the barrel throat was gone in my issued specimen. But it did say Colt AR-15 on the slick-sided lower receiver, with an FN-made M16A2 upper and burst lockwork - a composite training hack if ever there was. :(
 
There are those lurking on the internet who claim some or all of the below:

a) The AR-15 is not reliable
b) The AR-15 is maintenance intensive to keep it running
c) The AR-15/5.56mm package lacks lethality.

Hearing anyone say any of the above is, 99.9% of the time, a huge red flag that one is corresponding with either a Vietnam era former action guy who had a bad experience a lifetime ago in Southeast Asia or with an armchair commando who has zero idea what they are talking about.

The reality is that the AR platform works, does not require any remarkable excess of time to keep it running, and shuffles bad guys off this mortal coil with impressive efficiency. Do some clapped out rifles get used in training, especially basic training? Yes. But the weapon in credible mechanical working order does its job very well -- so well that the AR is an industry standard and the weapon of choice for a rather stellar range of folks who could use other weapons if they wanted to (i.e. CAG, DEVGRU, the UK SAS, the Aussie SASR, the NZSAS, private military corporation types from Blackwater and Triple Canopy, etc etc etc.).

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.
Click to expand...

Written by Charles Cutshaw by any chance? If it's the article I'm thinking of it's a puff piece promoting HK's 416 upper, with their apparent M.O. of exagerations and misinformation about the M4/M16 as a marketing device (they did the same thing when the XM8 was on the table).

Any ammo problems are particularly exagerated and overblown. For proof look no further than the fact that the special operations community is basically abandoning "underperforming" 14.5" barrel uppers . . . in favor of uppers with barrels of less than 12" (various models in service, including the HK 416s). If 14.5" was not getting the job done, it is quite hard to fathom why guys who can use alternate kit would opt for an even shorter barrel length.
 
Because it's cooooler! Everyone knows that in wartime, the cool factor is second to none...I mean, c'mon. Say terrorist 'Bob' is about to shoot when he sees that you're not just packing an m4/m16 like every other schmoe, but you've got a 11.5' commando barrel. He stops for a mili-second while his brain registers "Cool, commando barrel" giving one of our guys that much more time to poke some holes in him. Totally worth it if you ask me...
 
Gewehr98,
One of the moderators here and at THR is a dedicated 3-gun competitor, and finishes quite well in the matches, often first, while using an AK variant. Hint - sometimes it's not the gun in the match...
Click to expand...

How does he do with the AR? If he is as good as you say with the AK he would be even better with the AR. Still I would bet he couldn't beat me with it and I'm not dedicated. I beat guys that are dedicated using the AR at every match. At no match have I ever been beaten by someone shooting a different platform including M-1,M-14,SKS,AK47, and even a guy with a lever rifle once. In three gun they have the best change because they could be brilliant with the shotgun and pistol which would pad their rifle times. I have had many occasions where my pistol was lacking but my rifle bailed me out shotgun being neutral for me (fast as most with it). My point is while the shooters skills are important so is the platform. Two shooters with equal skills going head to head with the AR vs AK and I would bet the farm on the AR. I bet you wouldn't bet on the AK guy would you?
 
Once upon a time, I very well might have bet on the Colt. Not anymore.

I bet you wouldn't bet on the AK guy would you?
Click to expand...

Then I bought a Bulgarian Milled SLR-95, an honest-to-gawd 2 MOA rifle, and it's slicker than owl $hit on a brass doorknob. I realized right then and there that the AR-15/M16 is not the be-all, end-all of issued rifles or carbines, just the platform the U.S. DoD was heavily invested in and entrenched with for the next bazillion years. The whole MacNamara, Whiz Kids, and Lowest Bidder thing does indeed come to mind.

As for how a person could have the audacity to use an AK variant in 3-Gun, why don't you ask him yourself? His name is Larry Correia, he's a moderator at THR, match director of the local 3-gun range (http://www.udpl.net), and also owner of one darned nice gun store:

http://www.fbmginc.com

As stated earlier, so many people have bought into the notion that AK's are inherently inaccurate, and while a $400 AK-47 is not going to outshoot a $2500 heavily modified AR-15 with all the high-speed/low-drag crap hung on it, you'd be darned surprised at how a good AK and some practice will do in competition. After I deburred and slicked up my SAR-1 with a Tapco G2 trigger group, it became my SHTF nightstand gun. The Colt and Olympic Arms take up space in my safes now.
 
HorseSoldier. It was an article by the staff, not Charlie Cutshaw, and had no mention of any competitor of the current M4/M16. Not a cut-job on the rifle. It simply mentions the problems that have been documented by the AMU.

Yes, I was one of those who suffered a bad experience a "lifetime ago". However, I'm not bashing your toy. I simply mentioned some facts that a respected and acknowledged expert on this forum brought out about the current M16 platform in a thread not too long ago.

I also submit that the SF troops using the short barreled variants are more concerned with CQB than with 300+ meter engagements. The 12" barrel M4A1, and others even shorter, reduce the velocity of the 5.56 precipitously, and the weapons are being configured for the SMG role, replacing the pistol caliber rounds.

I would also broach the subject that the men and women of this forum are far and away more experienced with weapons than the average soldier. That someone would even think of the throat-wear of an issue arm is remarkable in and of itself. While Boot Camp trainees are given to think that EVERY failure encountered is somehow their fault, the M16 rifles that they use are quite typical of what many units are furnished with. Not everyone gets new pieces.It's a simple engineering fact that the tighter the tolerances, the more wear affects the operation. The M16 was developed to be a precision weapon, and to make use of smaller projectiles. Wear in one of them will be more serious in compromising the reliability than in weapons with larger tolerances by design. It's neither good nor bad, but it really exists, and it rears it's ugly head often enough to become a factor in combat.:)
 
I trained IA forces in the AK EMP (enhanced marksmanship course) course and the AKs poor ergonomic made it a second rate weapon when it came to that type of shooting. Even when we took their rifles and did some shooting with them we found them terrible inaccurate (good enough for a high volume of fire) and not well suited to clearing structures.
 
I also submit that the SF troops using the short barreled variants are more concerned with CQB than with 300+ meter engagements.
Click to expand...

I think it has more to the with the realities of war. The simple fact 300 meter plus engagements are rare. In both operational regions in Centcom, most engagement still occur under 100 meters.

The Marine Corps has been doing a lot of debating on the subject on why that is and whether our approaching to marksmanship training makes sense.
 
Gewehr, Listen I own 2 MAK-90's and love them. They won't shoot like your Bulgarian but for three gun I can hit the plates required with them at 200 yards. The problem is with the time between shots. The heavier recoil makes quick long range shooting impossible (when compared to the AR that is) due to the muzzle rise and then the need to re find the target. The next problem is reloading during fast paced events. You simply cannot reload an AK as fast. Despite much training with both systems I'm a superior goblin killer with the AR.......by far.

As beloved as the AK is surely some would have figure out that the Bulgarian is plenty accurate and use it in competition more often. I have seen but a handful in a decade of shootin.......and they got whupt bad.
 
This is not an AR VS AK thread.
I do not expect a $400 gun to be as accurate as a $1000 gun.
What makes the M16 better than other $1000 assault rifles?
 
The M16 is not a 1000 dollar assault rifle, USGIs ones are only something like 500 dollars without the MWS attached.

What drives up the cost is all the accessories in the MWS, the optic in the case of the RCO is worth more than the rifle.
 
Shotgun minister, not to disagree with your statement, but what would you have issued to our boys?
Click to expand...


I would have stayed with the semi-auto m14 and the M3 Grease Gun when the situation required. Now that was then. On today's battle field I would issue full auto SMGs in place of select fire M-16s.
 
Nothing wrong with the M-14. Now that was a rifle! My friend purchased an M1A a while back at a gun show and when we went plinking with it (not to mention it is a match one) we were incredibly impressed. Now our little shooting group is planning to make it the gun to go practice with. Too bad it costs a little bit more, though I admit it is worth it.

Eh, this AK vs. AR debate will go on and on and on and on and on. Both rifles have their stronger point over the other. I personally think the AR has sheer superiority in top-notch accessories compared to the AK but the AK was built to be the guerrilla, Red Soldier, and the Freedom Fighters gun. It's good to have a weapon you don't have to worry too much about when you are an irregular soldier doing several jobs at once. I didn't mean by my last statements that you have to clean the AR so regularly that it's worthless, but it's nowhere near as reliable as the AK. Just as the AK is not as accurate, but then again, it was never designed that way. I'd grab my AK anyday over my non-existent AR if I wanna kill goblins.

By the way, what is this business about Goblins anyway?
 
I'm not the best 3 gun shooter, but I know for a fact that if I use my MAK-90 or 91 in a 3 gun match that my scores will suffer big time. The safety is in a bad place to where I cannot manipulate it fast enough without shifting my grip. If the MAK-90 have a comp and a red dot sight it still won't tame recoil like my 16" DPMS w/ a Vandenberg comp and Tasco PDPIII.

My 16" DPMS may not be what is being issued to our front line troops, but it sure as heck very close. Mine is mil spec in every except for the barrel contour and matched upper/lower receiver. Now my Colt Sporter Match HBar is as mil spec as it can be except for the missing bayo lug. Now I do look at the top dogs at the Nationals and I don't see any AK variants in their equipment list.

On today's battle field I would issue full auto SMGs in place of select fire M-16s
Click to expand...
Huh?! Excuse the expression, but I can only imagine all of our troops toting MP5s or Uzis. Now if you would've said the P90 was issued then I can agree to that. josh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top